The Jharkhand High Court issued a direction to unseal the premises of the factory of the petitioner, accused of illegal trade of coal and held that immovable property cannot come within the purview of Section 102 CrPC and it does not give the power to seize immovable property and that power cannot be utilized by the police in absence of any order of the competent court of law.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was registered against the petitioner alleging that the industry managed by the petitioner was loading coal without taking the required permission and he was involved in the illegal trade of coal under the garb of Dealers registration and was operating the factory without complying with the consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. The present petition was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner under Sections 379/34 of the IPC, Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Rules 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (With Amendment), Section 09/13 of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rule, 2017, Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the entire case was maliciously filed against the petitioner and time and again the competent authority has inspected the factory premises of the petitioner. It was further argued that the allegation under Section 4/21 of the MMDR Act is not maintainable on the ground that directly FIR has been registered bypassing the mandatory provision of Section 22 of the MMDR Act. Further, it was contended that the petitioner is not engaged in mining, however, the case has been lodged under the said rules and regulations of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and on Section 379 of the IPC, the counsel argued that it was not made out as the petitioner was having a valid document for the operation of the said factory. It was contended that on the same day, the factory premises of the petitioner have been sealed, which is against the mandate of law and the police are not authorized to do so.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that only the FIR was under challenge in the present petition and all the aspects cannot be looked into by the court when a case is filed under Article 226. It was further contended that everything would be clear once the chargesheet had been submitted and thus no case of quashing of the FIR was made out the factory premises of the petitioners had been sealed in view of the allegations made against the petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that in the recent case, only the FIR was under challenge and the court then relied on the judgments in State NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay and Jayant and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh to dispose of the prayer of the quashing of FIR.
The court observed that sufficient material such as factory license, Consent to Operate, communication with regard to processing coal and transportation etc. was placed on record to show that the factory was being operated with valid documentation authorized by the competent authority.
The court further stated that immovable property cannot come within the purview of Section 102 CrPC and then referred to the judgment Nevada Properties Private Limited which held that the police officer cannot be allowed to seize immovable properties on mere suspicion of the commission of any offence and it would mean and imply giving a drastic and extreme power to dispossess etc. to the police officer on a mere conjecture and surmise, that is, on suspicion, which has hitherto not been exercised to state that when Section 102 CrPC, does not give the power to seize immovable property, that power cannot be utilized by the police in absence of any order of the competent court of law.
The decision of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition and allowed the petition with regard to the unsealing of the factory.
Case Title: Abhay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 225 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.S Mazumdar and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
