Jharkhand High Court
Jaygopal Tiwari @ Jai Gopal Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 1047 of 2023
....
1. Jaygopal Tiwari @ Jai Gopal Tiwari
2. Anil Jaiswal @ Anil Kumar Jaiswal
3. Santosh Raj
4. Ashok Tanti .... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bibhuti Kumar .... Respondents ....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Adv.
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III
....
02/15.01.2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance.
3. It appears that Borio (Jirwabari) P.S. Case No.302 of 2022 has been lodged for the offence under Sections 379/ 414/ 175 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 4 and 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2004, Sections 21(1), 21(6)/ 22 of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and Sections 7 and 9 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transpiration and Storage) Rule, 2017.
It further appears that police after investigation has submitted charge sheet under the above sections and ultimately cognizance has been taken vide order dated 25.01.2023 under Sections 379/ 414/ 175 of IPC, Sections 4/54 of JMMC Rule 2004, Section 21(1), 21(6), 22 of MMRD, 1957 and Sections 7 and 9 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transpiration and Storage) Rule, 2017.
4. Argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the MMDR Act, the complaint should have been filed and there is no theft report and as such offence under Section 414 of IPC is not made out.
5. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the above submission and submitted that there is a clear cut allegation of Section 379 of IPC and as such F.I.R. is maintainable. Further, this is not the stage of evaluation of evidence. There is enough material upon which the cognizance has been taken.
6. Considering the above facts, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present criminal writ petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
7. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take all the plea in the pending trial.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/