Mohd. Raza Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2876 Jhar

                                       1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                 ----

W.P.(Cr.) No. 149 of 2020

----

      Mohd. Raza Khan                                .... Petitioner
                               --   Versus      --
      The State of Jharkhand and Others              .... Respondents
                                     ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

       For the Petitioner        :-     Mr. Arun, Advocate
       For the State             :-     Mr. S.K. Shukla, Advocate
                                        ----

6/14.08.2023        Heard Mr. Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R being

Ketar P.S.Case No.48 of 2020, registered for the alleged commission of

offence under Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,

2004, under section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 and section 379, 411, 420, 120 and 34 of the

I.P.C., pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as

the M.M.D.R. Act is concerned, only the complaint can be maintained,

however, the FIR has been registered and he further submits that in view

of the matter atleast that part of the FIR may be quashed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view

of the FIR, no case has been made out and in view of that, the FIR may

kindly be quashed. He submits that specific role of the petitioner is not

disclosed in the FIR and in view of that, the FIR is fit to be quashed. He

submits that the case against the petitioner is not made out. He further

submits that only the FIR is under challenge and even the charge sheet

is not submitted as yet.

5. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court finds that there are allegations of illegally carrying

sand in question and in view of that, the case has been registered. There

is also seizure of machineries and vehicles and that is why, the FIR has

been registered. However, in view of paragraph no.21.4 of the judgment

in case of Jayant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670,

this petition is being disposed of. Once the investigation is completed, the

follow-up action shall be taken in light of paragraph no.21.4 of the said

judgment.

6. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

7. The Court in not inclined to quash the F.I.R as there are

allegations and there are parameters of quashing of the FIR. The case of

the petitioner is not coming within any of the parameters as held in the

case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, (1992) 1 Supp. 335.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/,