SRINAGAR: A Srinagar court has dropped charges under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act against three accused in an illegal mining and death case, holding that cognisance of the case cannot be taken without a formal complaint by an authorised government officer.
The order was passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar, presided over by Farooq Ahmad Bhat, in Sessions Trial No. 7/2026 arising out of FIR No. 26/2024 registered at Police Station Panthachowk.
The accused in the case are Mudasir Manzoor Dar of Lone Mohalla Khonmoh, Sameer Ahmad Najar of Khar Mohalla Khonmoh, and Mohammad Amin Chopan of Gulshan Colony Khonmoh. Advocate Amir Mushtaq represented the accused, while the Public Prosecutor represented the prosecution.
According to the prosecution, the case relates to an incident that occurred on March 25, 2024, at a stone quarry near SAIFCO Cement Factory in Showdari, Khonmoh, where excavation work was allegedly being carried out despite a government ban on mineral extraction in the area.
The prosecution alleged that an L&T excavator operator, identified as Mohammad Mushtaq Kandal of Kathua, died after coming under debris during the excavation operation.
“The extraction of stones/natural minerals is already banned/prohibited by the Govt. of J&K in the area,” the court order records.
Police stated that the deceased was operating the machine at the quarry site when the debris collapsed, resulting in his death on the spot. The body was later retrieved from the debris and shifted to SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, before post-mortem procedures were conducted at GMC Srinagar.
During the investigation, police also seized the damaged excavator machine. The court order states that investigators later found that the scrap of the damaged machine had allegedly been sold by its registered owner, following which additional offences, including Section 21 of the MMDR Act and Section 120-B IPC, were added to the case.
The prosecution sought framing of charges under Sections 188, 304-A, 427 and 120-B of the IPC along with Section 21 of the MMDR Act.
However, counsel for the accused argued that offences under the MMDR Act could not be taken cognisance of by the court in the absence of a written complaint by an authorised officer as required under Section 22 of the Act.
Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Jayant vs State of Madhya Pradesh and a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Abishekh Kukreti & Ors vs State of UP, the court accepted the contention of the defence.
“In view of the authoritative pronouncement of all their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the accused cannot be charged for an offence punishable u/s 21 of MMDR Act because no complaint till date has been made by the authorised officer regarding a violation under MMDR Act,” the court observed.
The court consequently dropped the offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act against the accused persons.
Since the remaining offences are triable by a magistrates’ court, the Additional Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Panthachowk.
The accused have been directed to appear before the magistrate’s court on June 18, 2026.
