Madras High Court
K.Rajeswaran vs The State Represented By on 17 April, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reservation : 17/04/2023
Date of Pronouncement : 02/08/2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.3998 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.3578 of 2023
1.K.Rajeswaran
2.S.Geetha : Petitioners/A4 and A5
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Arumanai Police Station,
Kaniyakumari District.
(Crime No.48 of 2022) : R1/Complainant
2.Samuvel : R2/De-facto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records and quash the proceedings in Special SC
No.26 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge
Court, Kaniyakumari District @ Nagercoil.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Prabhu
For 1st Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in Special SC No.26 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kaniyakumari District @ Nagercoil.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant was working as Sub Inspector of Police in Arumanai Police station. He along with a team of police party were on their routine patrolling duty, on 17/02/2022 at about 11.00 am, in view of the local body election. At about 11.15 am, they intercepted a lorry bearing registration No.TN-75-Q-7008. On enquiry, the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as Pushparaj. The driver of the another vehicle bearing registration No.TN-75-W-9158 also disclosed his name as Ashok Kumar. On search, they found transporting the rough stones worth about Rs.8,000/- without permission and permit, licence etc. The above said stones and properties were seized. On the basis of the above said occurrence, a case in Crime No.48 of 2022 was registered for the offences under sections 379 IPC and section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3
3.After completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed stating that the 4th accused namely Rajeswaran is the owner of the stone quarry. The above said rough stone was illegally transported by the above said lorries without proper permission and licence. So, according to the prosecution, they are liable to be punished under section 379 IPC and section 21(1) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Charge sheet was filed and it was taken cognizance in Special SC No.26 of 2023 by the Principal District Judge, Kaniyakumari.
4.Seeking quashment of the same, A4 and A5 namely Rajeswaran and his wife namely S.Geetha have filed this petition stating that absolutely, no material has been collected to implicate them in this crime.
5.Heard both sides.
6.As stated above, in the final report, it has been stated that first petitioner is the owner of the quarry and through his vehicle only, the above said rough stones were transported without proper permission and licence as the case may be.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4
7.The entire CD file has been called for and perused. Wherein we find that during the course of investigation, the ownership of the above said two vehicles have been collected, which shows that the first petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-75-W-9158, which fact is also not disputed by the petitioners.
8.Perusal of the records shows that the petitioners filed WP(MD)Nos.7941 and 7942 of 2021, seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the District Collector, Kaniyakumari to permit them to conduct stone quarrying operation in their patta lands, but for a period of 19 months and 22 days in respect of survey No.473/1B situated at Ayakottu village, Kalkurichi District and 30 months 27 days in respect of survey No.397/1A1 situated in Villukuri village, Kaniyakumari district. So, according to the petitioners, they were granted quarry operation in the above said two survey numbers by the Department as well as by the District Collector. But after that, finding that they have closed the quarry situated within 10 kms from Kaniyakumari Wild Life Station, the quarry operation was stopped temporarily by the District Collector, later https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 the Government of India reconsidered the stipulated zonal area and reduced to 3 kms. In pursuance of the above said order passed by the Government of India, the temporary suspension was later lifted. Stating that he is entitled to conduct quarry operation for the temporary suspension period, he filed the above said writ petition. Writ petition was allowed permitting the petitioners to conduct the stone quarry operation for non operating period. The above said order was passed, on 24/01/2021.
8.Now coming to the date of occurrence, it is stated to be 17/02/2022. So the above said occurrence said to have been taken place within the time period, which was permitted by this court in the above said order. But however, it is seen that for the purpose of transporting quarry sand, no proper permission or licence has been obtained by the petitioners for the purpose of transport.
9.As mentioned above, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that no material is collected to show that only with the permission of the petitioners, the above said rough stones were transported by A1 and A2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6
10.As mentioned above, the ownership of the lorry bearing No.TN-75-W-9158 is not disputed. Similarly another lorry also belongs to the wife of the first petitioner. The offence under section 379 IPC may not be attracted, since quarry operation was permitted by this court. None can commit theft of his owner property. But however, as seen above, violation of the licence is there. There is no proper explanation on the part of the petitioners with regard to the violation of transport permit.
11.Section 21(1) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 reads as follows:-
“21. Penalties.—(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, or with both.] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7
12.Whether the petitioners caused the transport of the rough quarry without any proper permission can be considered only during the course of investigation. It is a factual issue. Sitting under section 482 of Cr.P.C, it may not be proper on the part of this court to go into the factual issue.
13.For the purpose of transporting rough stone from the quarry, proper permission or licence ought to have been obtained by showing the vehicle number, route, period time and quantity etc. But nothing has been obtained. So, for violation of the licence only, the petitioners can be proceeded. What is the offence attracted is a matter for consideration by the trial court at the time of trial. But, however, section 379 IPC prima facie does not make out against the petitioners. Accordingly, the offence under section 379 IPC is quashed. But however, the trial court can proceed in accordance with law in so far as the offence under section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8
8.With the above said direction, this petition stands partly allowed.
02/08/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 To,
1.The Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kaniyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.3998 of 2023 02.08.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis