Jharkhand High Court
Govind Prasad Dudani vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 1 July, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1851 of 2024
------
1. Govind Prasad Dudani, aged about 64 yrs. Director of Jai Laxmi
Fuels P. Ltd., S/o Lt. Madan Lal Dudani, R/o Opp. Bank of India,
Vill. Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad.
2. Renu Dudani, aged about 56 years, Director of Jai Laxmi Fuels. P.
Ltd. W/o Govind Prasad Dudani, R/o Vill. Govindpur, Near Mohan
Petrol Pump, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No.132 of 2023 whereby and
where under the revisional court upheld the order dated 16.06.2023 passed in
M.C.A. No.3195 of 2022 by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in
connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.317 of 2021 corresponding to G.R.
No.194 of 2022 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad
rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be discharged from the case and directed
framing of charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the
M.M.D.R. Act, 1957; and also for quashing the said order dated 16.06.2023
passed in M.C.A. No.3195 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Dhanbad.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 01.09.2021, the Mining Inspector,
District Mining Office, Dhanbad submitted a written report to Govindpur
Police Station alleging therein that on 01.09.2021 at about 01.00 hours, the
Mining Inspector conducted a search for illegal storage of coal in the premises
of the petitioners. The petitioners used to run a Coal Depot on the basis of trade
license but they did not have any storage license. 3668.80 tonnes of coal was
seized from the coal depot of the petitioners. Police after investigation of the
case, submitted charge-sheet under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Section 21 of the M.M.D.R. Act. On 17.01.2022, a report was called
for by the learned trial court in order to verify the ownership of coal in the
matter of release of coal of the petitioners. A report was submitted by the
Investigating Officer of the case, copy of which has been kept at Annexure-3
page-33 of the brief, stating therein that in course of inquiry, the petitioner No.1
made available the documents relating to the ownership of the seized coal and
the documents upon verification, was found to be legal but in the report, it was
submitted that the offence committed by the petitioners is that they are having
trade license only but they were storing the coal also.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the papers relating to
sell and purchase of the coal was found to be valid and genuine by the police.
The offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made
out against the petitioner and so far as the offence punishable under Section 21
of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (M.M.D.R) Act, 1957
is concerned, in view of Section 22 of the said act, cognizance of the said offence
can only be taken on the basis of a complaint and not by lodging an FIR with
police. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar & Another vs. State
of Jharkhand & Others passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.361 of 2023 dated 04.10.2023, in
which the co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that when a complaint is
not filed, cognizance of the offence provided for in the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) (M.M.D.R) Act, 1957 cannot be taken. Hence, it
is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer of the petitioner and submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. is
sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code as well. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any
merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in the order
dated 24.02.2024 in Cr. Revision No.132 of 2023 has categorically mentioned
that during the investigation, the documents were found to be valid and the
only allegation against the petitioners is that the firm of the petitioners namely
M/s Jai Laxmi Fuels P. Ltd. was not having any storage license but still
processing of the coal was going on in factory premises. It is pertinent to
mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is as under:-
(a) deceit- that is to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation and
(b) inducing the person so deceived to part with property as has been observed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641.
7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation
against the petitioners, regarding the either of the aforesaid ingredients to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
There is no allegation of any deceit being played by the petitioners i.e. to say
the petitioners having dishonest or fraudulent representation nor is there any
allegation that any person deceived by the petitioners have parted with the
property or omitted to do anything which the persons deceived would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived. Under such circumstances, this Court is of
the considered view that even if the entire allegations made in the F.I.R., case-
diary and charge-sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, still the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out
against the petitioners.
8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) (M.M.D.R) Act, 1957 is concerned, in
the case of Manish Kumar Shah @ Manish Kumar Sah vs. The State of
Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.2753 of 2023 dated 01st May, 2024, this Court
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Jayant & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670 as
well as in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay and allied cases reported
in (2014) 9 SCC 772 as also Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) (M.M.D.R) Act, 1957 which reads as under:-
"22. Cognizance of offences.--No court shall take cognizance
of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder
except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this
behalf by the Central Government or the State Government."
quashed and set aside the cognizance in respect of the offences
punishable under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
(M.M.D.R) Act, 1957; as such cognizance order was passed, without a
complaint in writing being made by the person authorized in this behalf by the
Central Government or the State Government. In this case, as already indicated
above, no complaint in writing has been filed by any person authorized in this
behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Therefore, the
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) (M.M.D.R) Act, 1957 is also not
sustainable in law. But both the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad
in M.C.A. No.3195 of 2022 arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.317 of 2021
corresponding to G.R. No.194 of 2022 as well as the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No.132 of 2023 have failed to
consider this important aspect and without considering the essential
ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, in a mechanical manner, resorting to grave illegality have held that
the allegations constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) (M.M.D.R) Act, 1957 even though no
written complaint was made directly to the learned Magistrate by the
authorized person.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No.132 of 2023 whereby and
where under the revisional court upheld the order dated 16.06.2023 passed in
M.C.A. No.3195 of 2022 by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in
connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.317 of 2021 corresponding to G.R.
No.194 of 2022 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad
rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be discharged from the case and directed
framing of charges and also the order dated 16.06.2023 passed in M.C.A.
No.3195 of 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad,
are quashed and set aside.
10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 01st of July, 2024
AFR/ Animesh
