Allahabad High Court
Raza Murad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 August, 2023
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154783 Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27948 of 2023 Applicant :- Raza Murad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Pandey,Sumit Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of case no. 332 of 2023, State Vs. Maroof and others, under section 147, 504, 188, 452 I.P.C. and section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Tanda, District Rampur, arising out of case crime no. 263 of 2021, in respect of charge sheet dated 4.4.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 16.1.2023 passed by C.J.M, Rampur.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this application is that on 21.8.2021, the Revenue Team while on Inspection duty, reached at P.S. Tanda and on way found two trucks loaded with illegally mined product and intercepted the same. In this regard, a first information report was lodged against the applicant, which was registered vide Case Crime No. 0263 of 2021, under Section 147, 353, 504, 188 IPC, section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Tanda, District- Rampur.
4. After registration of the FIR, the Police thoroughly investigated the matter and after recording statement of the witnesses submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. On the basis of which, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section under Section 147, 504, 188, 452 IPC, Section 4 read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act vide order dated 16.1.2023.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 16.1.2023, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order dated 16.1.2023 taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the applicants to face trial on the basis of charge-sheet is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that for an offence under Section 4 read with Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), no cognizance can be taken on the basis of police report. To substantiate his argument, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Section 22 of the aforesaid Act, wherein it is stated that "No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government."
8. Perusal of the said provision clearly lays down that for an offence under Section 4 read with Section 21 of the Act, cognizance cannot be taken on the basis of police report rather a complaint is to be filed in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 clearly provides that for an offence under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, cognizance of the offences cannot be taken on the basis of the police report rather a complaint is to be filed in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government (in case of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957).
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has thus submitted that the order taking cognizance of the offences dated 16.1.2023 based on the charge-sheet is bad in law and therefore, liable to be set aside.
11. Per contra, learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts, but has stated that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence under Sections 147, 504, 188, 452 IPC and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, proceedings under Sections 147, 504, 188, 452 IPC and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act cannot be quashed.
12. Having considered the rival submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the provision contained in Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, which provides that "No Court shall taken cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government", order dated 16.1.2023 taking cognizance of the offence based on the charge-sheet dated 4.4.2022 and summoning the applicant under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act is liable to be set aside, however it is further open for the competent authority authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government to file a complaint in writing by an authorised person under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, the learned Magistrate may proceed in accordance with law under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. Sofar as the prosecution of the applicant under Section 147, 504, 188, 452 IPC and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is concerned, prima facie offence under Sections 147, 504, 188, 452 IPC and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is clearly made out against the applicant, as such, proceedings under Section under Section 147, 504, 188 IPC and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act cannot be quashed.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, proceedings of Case No. 332 of 2023, State Vs. Maroof and others, arising out of case crime no. 263 of 2021, under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, Police Station- Tanda, District- Rampur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,Rampur, based on the charge-sheet stands quashed, however the proceedings against the applicant u/s under Sections 147, 504, 188,452 IPC and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference and the said proceedings would continue against the applicants under Section 147, 504, 188,452 IPC and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act in accordance with law.
14. With the aforesaid observation, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed subject to the fact that, in case, any complaint is filed by the authorised person under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, the learned Magistrate may proceed in accordance with law in the said section. Further the proceedings of the instant case u/s 147, 504, 188, 452 IPC and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act shall continue against the applicant and brought to logical conclusion in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 2.8.2023 R