Jharkhand High Court
Mukul Modi vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:33984]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1750 of 2025
------
Mukul Modi, aged about 34 years, son of Late Mahendra Prasad
Barnwal, resident of 462, Patna Transport Lane, Near Bank of
India, Ward No.11, Jhumari Telaiya, P.O. Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya,
District Koderma, Jharkhand.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, GP-I
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I
------
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 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the
prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 14.02.2025 arising out of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 102 of 2023
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1840 of 2023 in which after investigation
of the case, charge sheet has been submitted inter alia against the
petitioner and charge for the offence punishable under Section 414 of
Indian Penal Code and Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 has been framed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih on 14.02.2025.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on the basis of the written report
submitted by the Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, Giridih,
[2025:JHHC:33984]
police registered Giridih Town P.S. Case No. 102 of 2023. The
allegations made in the FIR is that stolen Mica dust while being
unloaded in the godown of an accused person of the case, the forest
officials asked for the tax invoice and connected documents to be
produced by the driver of the vehicle, from which the said material was
unloaded. No e-transportation challan could be found in respect of the
Mica dust/powder loaded in the concerned truck. Hence, considering
the same to be stolen property, the police seized the same. On
verification of the godown of Kritika Enterprises, where the said stolen
Mica dust was unloaded, the owner of the godown did not appear
before the police officers. Verification of the godown disclosed that 3483
bags of mica dust each bag containing about 25 Kg. of mica dust was
illegally kept therein and the same was seized from the said godown.
The computer operator could not produce the e-transportation challan
in respect of the said articles. On verification from JIMMS portal, it was
found out that the license of Kritika Enterprises was valid till 31.03.2022.
Alleging that the illegal mining and storage was made, the FIR was
lodged. Police after investigation of the case, found the allegations
against the petitioner and the co-accused persons to be true and
submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner for having
committed the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal
Code as well as Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal
Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. The petitioner after
summoning, appeared before the trial court but did not file any petition
to discharge him in the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Giridih found that there is sufficient material available in the record to
[2025:JHHC:33984]
frame charges against the petitioner for having committed the offence
punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and Rule 13 of the
Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2017 and framed charges alleging that on 02.05.2023 at
12:30 PM at godown of Kritika Enterprises, inter alia the petitioner
assisted in concealing the property namely 120 bags of mica dust
around 30 Kg. per bag; which the petitioner knew to be stolen property.
The charge in respect of Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention
of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 was alleged
to have been committed by the petitioner as the petitioner purchased,
sold and stored minerals, without having any proper license.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat &
Others vs. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya & Others reported in (2019)
16 SCC 513 and submits that therein it was held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India that no power flows from Section 23-C of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to make
rule by the State Government for regulating transportation of the legally
excavated minerals.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar MICA Exporters
Association vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2012 SCC
OnLine Jhar 608 and submits that whether a mineral remains a mineral
or has undergone a change in its fundamental nature into a mineral
product is a question of fact to be determined in each individual case by
the competent authority under the Act and the Rules. It is then
[2025:JHHC:33984]
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that therein, it was
also held by the Division Bench of his Court that the validity of the
Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules, 2007 has been upheld by the Division
Bench subject to reading down of the provision relating to mineral
products used in the impugned rules. Hence, it is submitted that as the
seized material is a mineral product, so no offence is made out against
the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
allegations against the petitioner are false. The prosecution has been
instituted with ulterior motive. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Giridih in most mechanical and casual manner, has framed charges
against the petitioner that the petitioner's firm obtained Consent to
Operate under Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974. It is then submitted that the property stolen is a
pre-requisite for invocation of Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition and submits that it is a settled principle of law
that for making out an offence punishable under Section 414 of the
Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that it must be traced out that
someone has committed offence of theft. It is next submitted that there
is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner
has assisted in concealing the stolen property. It is then submitted that
no document could be produced during the investigation of the case as
[2025:JHHC:33984]
to the ownership of the property seized by any of the accused persons.
So, the natural corollary is that the same is a stolen property. Hence, it is
submitted that the material available in the record is sufficient to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal
Code. It is further submitted that as the petitioner did not file any
petition for discharge, there was no occasion for the learned trial court
to discuss the material in details by mentioning relevant paragraphs of
the case-diary and other materials available in the record to suggest as
to how the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal
Code and Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal
Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is made out. Hence, it
is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without
any merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submission made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the records, it is
pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajendra Nath
vs. State reported in AIR 1964 SC 170 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has held that it is not necessary for a person to be
convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, that some other
person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing
theft, the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code
can be made out, if the prosecution simply proves that the property
recovered is stolen property and that an accused extended help in
concealment and disposal of the same. So, this Court do not find any
merits in the contention of the petitioner that to make out the offence
[2025:JHHC:33984]
punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be
traced out that an offence of committing theft was made by someone.
9. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav
vs. State of Bihar reported in (2007) 1 SCC 49 that charge may be
framed without recording any reason. The undisputed fact remains that
the petitioner did not file any petition for discharge. The learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih after considering the material available in
the record, found prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Rule 13 of the
Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2017.
10. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Abrar & Others vs. State of
Jammu & Kashmir & Others reported in AIR 1981 SC 1548 that at the
stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of the evidence
and other materials is not necessary.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioner of assisting in concealment of stolen
mica dust which was seized by the concerned authority while being
stealthily transported. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is
sufficient to prima facie constitute the offence punishable under Section
414 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the
petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of
the power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
[2025:JHHC:33984]
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without
any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 13th of November, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 19/11/2025
