Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: indian penal code section 379 in Nawab Ali And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 August, 2021Matching Fragments
1. Heard Mr. Vinod Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet no. 69 of 2020 dated 26.02.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 93 of 2020 under Section 379 I.P.C, Sections 4/21 of The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 and Sections 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, P.S. Swar, District-Rampur, Cognizance Taking Order dated 23.07.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur upon aforesaid charge-sheet, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No. 995 of 2020 (State Vs. Nawab Ali and others) under Section 379 I.P.C, Sections 4/21 of The Mines and Minerals ( Regulation and Development) Act 1957 and Sections 3/4 Protection of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Swar, District Rampur, now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, Rampur.
4. Record shows that first informant/opposite party-2, Deepak Bhatnagar, Halka Lekhpal lodged an F.I.R. dated 14.02.2020, which was registered as Case Crime No. 93 of 2020 under Section 379 I.P.C, Sections 4/21 The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 and Sections 3/4 Protection of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, P.S. Swar, District-Rampur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely, Nawab Ali, Nasir Ali and Ashiq Ali (applicants herein), have been nominated as named accused
6. After registration of above noted F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer accordingly recorded statements of first informant and other witnesses in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above as well as other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which is substantially adverse to applicant. Investigating Officer formed an opinion that a charge-sheet should be submitted against named accused. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 26.02.2020 whereby and whereunder named accused Nawab Ali, Nasir Ali and Ashiq Ali (applicants herein) have been charge sheeted under Section 379 I.P.C, Sections 4/21 of The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 and Sections 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
15. Thereafter Apex Court in Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (2020) 14 SCC 331, again considered the issue as noted above with reference to the judgement in State (NCT OF DELHI) (Supra) and held as follows in paragraphs, 15 and 16:-
" 15. We would again advert to the decision in Sanjay (supra) which had overruled the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Seema Sarkar v. State17 wherein the High Court held the proceedings to be invalid and illegal as the Magistrate had taken cognizance on the basis of a charge-sheet submitted by the police under Section 21(2) of the Mines Regulation Act and Section 379 of the IPC, observing that the cognizance was one that cannot be split or divided. The High Court had further observed that as the complaint was not made in terms of Section 22 of the Mines Regulation Act, the cognizance was bad and contrary to law. We have already noted the decision of the Delhi High Court which had directed that the FIR should not be treated as registered under Section 379 of the IPC but only under Section 21 of the Mines Regulation Act. These decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Delhi High Court were reversed and set aside by this Court in Sanjay (supra) after referring to Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and the meaning of the expression ''same offence', to observe that the offence underSection 21 read with Section 4 of the Mines Regulation Act and Section 379 of the IPC are different and distinct. The aforesaid reasoning compels us to reject the contention of the appellant that the action as impugned in the FIR (1995) 1 Cal LT 95 is a mere violation of Section 4 which is an offence cognizable only under Section 21 of the Mines Regulation Act and not under any other law. There is no bar on the Court from taking cognizance of the offence under Section 379 of the IPC. We would also observe that the violation of Section 4 being a cognizable offence, the police could have always investigated the same, there being no bar under the Mines Regulation Act, unlike Section 13(3)(iv) of the TOHO Act.