Jharkhand High Court
M/S Apical Exim Private Limited ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2015
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1297 of 2010
with
Cr.M.P. No. 1298 of 2010
with
Cr.M.P. No. 1301 of 2010
M/s. Apical Exim Private Limited represented through its Director
Sri Rakesh Kumar Singhania, aged about 38 years, son of Om
Prakash Singhania, resident 98 of Netajee Subash Road, P.O. &
P.S. Assansol, District-Burdwan
... ....Petitioner ( in Cr.M.P. 1297/2010)
M/s. Tirupati Balaji Enterprises, represented through its
Proprietor Sri Rakesh Kumar Singhania, aged about 38 years,
son of Om Prakash Singhania, resident 98 of Netajee Subash
Road, P.O. - Assansol, P.S. Asansol South, District-Burdwan, West
Bengal .... ....Petitioner ( in Cr.M.P. 1298/2010)
M/s. Apical Exim Private Limited represented through its Director
Sri Rakesh Kumar Singhania, aged about 38 years, son of Om
Prakash Singhania, resident 98 of Netajee Subash Road, P.O. -
Assansol, P.S. Asansol South, District-Burdwan, West Bengal
.... ....Petitioner ( in Cr.M.P. 1301/2010)
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite Parties( in all the cases)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ananda Sen ( in all the cases)
For the State: Mr. Amitabh, APP
( in Cr.M.P. 1297/2010
& Cr.M.P. 1298/2010)
Ms. Anita Sinha,APP
( in Cr.M.P. 1301/2010)
For the CBI: Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo
( in Cr.M.P. No. 1297/2010
&Cr.M.P. No. 1298/2010)
9/24.03.2015: Points of law raised in this cases are similar, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. In Cr.M.P. No. 1297 of 2010 and Cr.M.P. No. 1298 of 2010, petitioners prayed for quashing the FIR pertaining to Gua Bada Jamda P.S. Case No. 28 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 231 of 2010 under sections 467/468/471/420/120B of the IPC and section 21 of MMDR Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa whereas in Cr.M.P. No. 1301 of 2010 petitioner has prayed for quashing the FIR pertaining to Muffasil P.S. Case No. 39 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 210 of 2010 under sections 468/469/420/120 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 and 21 of MMDR Act pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.
3. Sri Amitabh, learned Additional P.P. submits that during the pendency of these applications investigation of Gua Bada Jamda P.S. Case No. 28 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 231 of 2010 handed over to CBI by the Central Government. Under the said circumstance, apart from Sri Amitabh , I also heard Sri K.P. Deo learned counsel for the CBI in Cr.M. P No. 1297 of 2010 and Cr.M. P. -2- No. 1298 of 2010. Ms. Anita Sinha appeared and argued the case on behalf of State in Cr.M.P. No. 1301 of 2010.
4. In these applications, the main allegations against the petitioners are that they were using forged documents for transporting iron ore from one place to another place. To be more specific, the allegations against Tirupati Balaji Enterprises is that it used the transit permit issued in favour of Ghatkuri Rungta Mines by affixing seal of Mayur Ispat of Bada Jamda, whereas the allegations against Apical Exim Private Limited is that it transported 37 to 39 M.T. Iron Ore on 12 motorcycle and 2 maxi cycle. Accordingly, the present First Information Reports lodged and police took up the investigation.
5. Sri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are transporter and it alleged that they transported iron ore without transit permit which is violative of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer Rules, 2007 read with section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, 1957. Accordingly, Sri Sen submits that even if , allegations against these petitioners are taken to be true, then also no offence under I.P.C. made out against them. At best they can be punished under section 21(1) of the MMDR Act and Rule 8 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer Rules, 2007. Thus, he submits that in view of section 22 of the MMDR Act, petitioners cannot be punished unless the complaint is filed by the competent authority. Accordingly, he submits that police has no jurisdiction to investigate the case.
6. On the other hand, Sri K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the CBI and learned Additional P.Ps appearing for the State of Jharkhand submits that the point of law raised by Sri Ananda Sen has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay and analogous cases reported in 2014(9) SCC 772 and by this court in Syed Mumtaz Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No. 672 of 2006 , where it was held that if a composite allegations made against the accused that he has committed some offences enumerated in the IPC along with the offences punishable under MMDR Act, then the police has power to register FIR and investigate the same. It is submitted by learned counsels for the opposite parties that there are allegations in the FIR that petitioner Tirupati Balaji Enterprises had used the transit permit issued in the name of Ghatkuri Rungta Mines by affixing seal of Mayur Ispat of Bada Jamda. Accordingly, it is submitted that the use of unauthorized seal on a document comes within the definition of forgery as defined under sections 463 read with section 464 of the IPC. Accordingly, learned counsels for the opposite parties submit that police is entitle to investigate the cases in view of aforesaid judgments -3-
7. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. As noticed above, it is alleged that the petitioner, Tirupati Balaji Enterprises, used transit permit issued in the name of Ghatkuri Rungta Mines for transporting the iron ore through Railways by affixing seal of Mayur Ispat, Bada Jamda. Thus, if it will be proved during the investigation that petitioner has affixed the aforesaid seal for wrongful gain then prima offences under sections 467, 468,471 read with section 120B of the IPC made out. So far the petitioner Apical Exim Pvt. Ltd is concerned in one case it is alleged that petitioner transported 37 to 39 M.T. Iron Ore on motorcycle and maxi cycle. Hhearas in another case it is alleged that petitioner transported Iron ore on fake transit permit.
8. It is needless to say that aforesaid offences are cognizable offences. It is worth mentioning that the offence under section 21 of MMDR Act is also cognizable offence as par section 21 (6) of the aforesaid Act. Thus, as per section 154 of the Cr.P.C., police is duty bound to lodge FIR after receiving the information of commission of offence and investigate the same. Thus, I find no illegality in this respect. My aforesaid view further finds support from the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay and analogous cases reported in 2014(9) SCC 772 and of this court in Syed Mumtaz Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand ( Cr.M.P. No. 672 of 2006).
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find that there is no merit in these cases. Accordingly, I dismiss these applications.
( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-