Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Murari Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 30 September, 2015
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 828 of 2012
with
I. A. No. 1206 of 2014
Krishna Murari Singh ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ram Lakhan Pandey ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
--------
3/ 30.09.2015Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as also the FIR, in Balumath P.S. Case No. 32 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 187 of 2012, which was instituted for the offences under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the Mines Minerals (Regulations & Development) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'MMRD Act'). By way of I.A. No. 1206 of 2014, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.4.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, passed in the said case, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the MMRD Act was taken against the petitioner.
3. The FIR in Balumath P.S. Case No. 32 of 2012 has been brought on record, from which, it appears that illegally mined quartz and felsphar stones were recovered by the police and the police was informed that those illegally mined stones were stored by the petitioner. It is stated in the FIR that the petitioner was having the lease and license for mining purpose, but those quartz and felsphar stones were not extracted from the place of lease, rather, they were illegally extracted from another place and was stored by the petitioner. With these allegations, the FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the MMRD Act. It appears that after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and on the basis of charge sheet and the materials available in the case diary, the Court below took cognizance for the said offences against the petitioner and other co-accused, by the impugned order dated 25.4.2013.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order taking cognizance, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the said Balumath P.S. Case No. 32 of 2012, are absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the petitioner was having the lease and license for mining purpose and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made against the petitioner. It is further submitted that institution of police case for the offence under Section 21 of the MMRD Act and the order taking cognizance for the said offence under the MMRD Act is absolutely illegal and in teeth of Section 22 of the MMRD Act, inasmuch as, the cognizance for the offence under the said Act is absolutely barred, except upon the complaint made in writing by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the -2- State Government. It is submitted that since the present case relates to police case and not a complaint by the authorised person, the impugned order taking cognizance, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the said Balumath P.S. Case No. 32 of 2012 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are fit to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.
6. From perusal of the FIR itself, it is apparent that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that even though the petitioner was having the lease and license for mining purpose, but the mining was not done at the leasehold plot, rather, the quartz and felsphar stones were illegally mined from another place and accordingly, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner.
7. In that view of the matter, I do not see any illegality in the institution of the police case against the petitioner or taking cognizance against the petitioner by the learned Court below, so far it relates to the offence under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, I find force in submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that institution of police case and the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 21 of the MMRD Act is absolutely illegal, and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Section 22 of the MMRD Act clearly provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except upon the complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. The present case has been instituted on the basis of the police case and in view of Section 22 of the MMRD Act, neither the police case could be lodged nor the cognizance could be taken by the Court below for the offence under Section 21 of the MMRD Act.
8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 25.4.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, so far it takes cognizance for the offence under Section 21 of the MMRD Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 25.4.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in Balumath P.S. Case No. 32 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 187 of 2012, so far it takes cognizance for the offence under Section 21 of the MMRD Act, is hereby, quashed. It is, however, made clear that there is no interference in the said order taking cognizance in so far as it relates to the offence under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly, allowed in part. Consequently, the aforesaid interlocutory application also stands allowed in part.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.