Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2018
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
M.Cr.C. No. 7181/2018
2
Jabalpur, Dated: 14/03/2018
Shri Nitin Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Shahin Fatima, learned G.A for the respondent/State.
Heard.
The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court and for quashing the charge sheet in RCT No. 19388/2017 pending before J.M.F.C, Jabalpur.
2. A written complaint was filed by the Mines Inspector Jablapur to Police Station Barela stating that on 15.06.2017 when he inspected the river bank of Narmada for ensuing prevention of transportation of illegal mining and reached village Charghat along with S.D.M Namah Shivay Arjariya, Tahsildar Pankaj Mishra, Nayab Tahsildar Dulare Lal Parte, Mining Inspector Satish Nagle and Patwari Shri Umashankar Upadhyay. They found that on the banks of Narmada river about 100 cubic meter of sand was lying which had been illegally taken out from the river.
3. It is further claimed that the mining of sand from the river bank of Narmada is completely prohibited. The mining of sand in Charghat area is also not authorized by the State Government. On enquiry it was found that one Ajit Kumar and Ramji Mahobiya (Kotwar) of village Charghat informed them that Brajesh Patel and Manoj Agrawal with the help of Dinghies (kistiya) taken out sand from the Narmada river surreptitiously and stocked in the river bank of Narmada. The estimated price of the sand is Rs.1,44,000/-.
4. Mining Inspector Satish Nagle recorded the statements of Ajit Kumar and Ramji Mahobiya and panchnama was drawn. On this written report Crime No. 252/2017 was lodged at Police Station Barela for offence under Section 379 of I.P.C.
5. After investigation by the police, charge sheet has been filed for offence under Sections 379 of I.P.C and Section 28 (1) (5) of the M.P. Illegal Storage Transportation Rules, 2006 and Section 4 (1) of the Illegal Mining Act, 1957.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, this petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is innocent. The petitioner has lodged a complaint about the illegal mining by Ajit Patel, Gram Rojgar Sahayak of village Panchayat Charghat and alleged that the witness Ajit Patel was involved in the illegal mining of sand and was carrying the illegal sand through the land of his sister. Therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated by hatching a conspiracy. It is also claimed that the petitioner had given several letters to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Jabalpur on 09.03.2017, 25.03.2017, and 10.06.2017. He also made complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. This written complaint has been made by the Mining Inspector without any truth in it.
7. On behalf of the respondent/State the application is opposed vehemently. It is contended that the statements of Shri Pushpendra Tripathi, Mining Inspector, Shri Namah Shivay Arjariya, S.D.M, Shri Pankaj Mishra, Tahsildar, Shri Ramji Mahobiya, Kotwar of village Charghat, Shri Uma Shankar, the village Patwari of Halka Charaghat, Shri Satish Nagle, Mining Inspector, Shri Dulare Lal Parte indicates the commission of the offence. If it is presumed that the petitioner is having enmity with Ajit Patel that does not mean that these officers would falsely implicate the petitioner- Manoj Agrawal. Whereas Manoj Agrawal is the Secretary of the panchayat. It is also claimed that the witnesses Ajit Kumar and Ramji Mahobiya (Kotwar) have indicated the petitioner having collected the sand from the river and from the river bank for illegal mining of the sand. The petitioner failed to express why Ramji Mahobiya (Kotwar) could have named the petitioner even if it is believed that Ajit Patel has falsely implicated him. There is no satisfactory explanation by the petitioner about the statement of Ramji Mahobiya in presence of the officials including the S.D.M and the Mining Inspector. That being so, at this stage of the trial simply on the ground mentioned by the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to quash the criminal proceeding.
8. This Court is not inclined to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the present case. The truthfulness or otherwise all the allegations made in the complaint can only be determined after the entire material is produced before the Court and evidence is led. This Court will not enter into inquiry of disputed facts and thereafter held in favour of the petitioner.
9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Kumar Palo) JUDGE awinash Digitally signed by AWINASH CHANDRA Date: 2018.03.16 11:22:12 +05'30'