Madras High Court
Cr.M.P. In Seial No.6285/2021 ... vs State Of Bihar) on 1 December, 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl OP(MD)Nos.13871, 14240, 14606, 14611 & 14614 of 2021
and
Crl MP(MD)Nos.7458, 7638 & 7647 of 2021
in Crl OP(MD)No.14606 of 2021 :
M.S.Raja ... Peitioner
v.
1.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.332 of 2021) ...Complainant
2.T.Harish Revington Duraisingh
3.Jeevanantham
4.Ramakrishnan
5.Ponsekar Samuel Durairaj ...Respondents / Accused
(Rank Not Known)
in Crl OP(MD)No.14611 of 2021 :
M.S.Raja ... Peitioner
v.
1.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.332 of 2021) ...Complainant
2.Thangadurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Ramesh
4.Palanisamy
5.Palani Swaminathan ...Respondents / Accused
(Rank Not Known)
in Crl OP(MD)No.14614 of 2021 :
M.S.Raja ... Peitioner
v.
1.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.332 of 2021) ...Complainant
2.B.Kumar
3.Sankarabalakrishnan
4.Subburaj
5.Sivasubramaniyan ...Respondents / Accused
(Rank Not Known)
Common Prayer for Crl OP(MD)Nos.14606, 14611 & 14614 of
2021 : These three Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section
482 of Cr.PC, to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal
Sessins Judge, Thoothukudi in Unnumbered Cr.M.P. in Seial No.
6284/2021 (Crl.Regr.(A)9) in Cr.M.P.No.3811 of 2021, Cr.M.P. in
Seial No.6286/2021 (Crl.Regr.(A)9) in Cr.M.P.No.3804 of 2021 and
Cr.M.P. in Seial No.6285/2021 (Crl.Regr.(A)9) in Cr.M.P.No.3806 of
2021, respectively, pending on his file vide order dt.22.9.2021 and
consequently direct the aforesaid learned Judge to entertain the
petitioner as a victim of the crime referred to in Crime No.332 of
2021 registered at SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi District by
allowing him to maintain his intervening applications in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bail/anticipatory bail petitions being filed by the accused persons
and other petitions connected with the said crime.
in Crl OP(MD)No.13871 of 2021 :
M.S.Raja ... Peitioner
v.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.332 of 2021)
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Madurai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.PC, to transfer the investigation in Crime No.332 of 2021 on the
file of the Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi
District to the file of the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau
of Investigation, Madurai District for proceeding further.
in Crl OP(MD)No.14240 of 2021 :
M/s.V.V.Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd.,
Rep.by its Assistant General Manager,
M.Palanisamy ... Peitioner / Accused
v.
1.The State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police,
Sipcot Police Station, Thoothukudi. ... Respondent
(Crime No.332 of 2021)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.A.Rajesh Kanna
Village Administrative Officer,
Meelavittan Part-I Village,
Thoothukudi. ... Respondent/
De-facto complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.PC, to call for the records and quash the impugned FIR in
Crime No.332 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent against the
petitioner.
in Crl OP(MD)No.14606 of 2021 Mr.R.Anand
for Petitioner
For Respondent No.1 Mr.T.Senthilkumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents 2 & 4 Mr.Lakshminarayanan
for M/s.Kingsly Solomon
in Crl OP(MD)Nos.14611 &Mr.R.Anand
14614 of 2021, for Petitioner
For R1 Mr.T.Senthilkumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 to R5 Mr.Muralikumaran
for M.C.Gan Law Firm
in Crl OP(MD)No.13871 of 2021 Mr.R.Anand
for Petitioner
For R1 and R2 Mr.T.Senthilkumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 Ms.L.Victoria Gowri,
Assistant Solicitor General of
India - I
in Crl OP(MD)No.14240 of 2021 Mr.Muralikumaran
for Petitioner for MC.Gan Law Firm
For R1 Mr.T.Senthilkumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
COMMON ORDER
All these original petitions arise out of Crime No.332 of 2021
registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police
Station, Thoothukudi District. The said FIR was registered on
20.08.2021 for the offences under Sections 448, 379 and 420 of
IPC r/w.Section 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 on the basis of information given by the
Village Administrative Officer, Meelavittan Part I, Thoothukudi.
The informant received information that a portion of the stockpile
of ilmenite mineral kept in the sealed godown belonging to V.V
Mineral group was being illegally transported to V.V Titanium
Pigments Private Limited. When he reached its premises, he found
that the mineral had already been unloaded from three lorries.
The lorries, the empty gunny bags and 39 tonnes of the mineral
sand were seized. In the year 2017, the Government of Tamil
Nadu had appointed special teams to estimate the actual quantum
of beach sand minerals stacked at various places in Thoothukudi
District pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble First Bench of the
Madras High Court made by order dated 11.01.2017 in Suo Motu
PIL WP No.1592 of 2015 and W.A No.1168 & 1169 of 2015. The
final stock position as far as V.V Minerals, Mullakkadu and
Agaram Village was as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Stock Type Survey No Volume in Bulk Density Net Quantum
cu.mts (in Mts)
Garnet 21A/1A, 1B, 25641.99 2.432 62361.34
Ilmenite 1C 26489.62 2.739 72565.08
Zircon 902.31 2.921 2635.65
Rufile 306.42 2.641 809.25
Harbour Construction Road
Garnet 262/2 10496.69 2.388 25066.10
Agaram (Srivaikuntam Taluk)
Ilmenite 152/1A, 1B 269.5 2.27 686.666
Total Quantum 164113.028
It is not in dispute that the entire stock was kept in a sealed
godown and till date, permission has not been granted for removing
the mineral stored therein.
2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the impugned FIR
is that from this godown, there has been an illegal removal and
transport of 39 tonnes of ilmenite mineral. To quash the FIR, V.V
Titanium Pigments Private Limited filed Crl OP(MD)No.14240 of
2021. Seeking transfer of investigation and its entrustment in the
hands of CBI, one M.S.Raja has filed Crl OP(MD)No.13871 of 2021.
When petitions seeking anticipatory bail were filed before the
Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in connection with this
case, M.S.Raja filed petitions to intervene. Those petitions were
dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Challenging the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissal orders, Crl OP(MD)Nos.14606 & 14611 and 14614 of
2021 have been filed. Since all the original petitions are inter
connected, they were heard together and are disposed of by this
common order.
3.The issue of locus standi of M.S.Raja can be taken up first.
In this case, the police arrested the persons who had transported
the mineral. When they filed bail petitions, M.S.Raja filed Cr.MP
Nos.3672, 3870 & 3871 of 2021 for intervening himself. Those
petitions were dismissed by the Sessions Court by order dated
03.09.2021 on the ground that M.S.Raja did not have locus standi.
The said order was not put to challenge by M.S.Raja. Therefore,
when he subsequently filed petitions to intervene in the
anticipatory bail petitions, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed
them too. Of course, the reference to Section 362 of Cr.Pc does not
appear to be appropriate. But then, the learned Sessions Judge
could not have allowed the subsequent petitions for intervention
when he had dismissed the earlier intervention petitions filed by
M.S.Raja. Judges unlike litigants and lawyers are obliged to be
logically consistent.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the proposed intervenor
submitted that it was he who fed the information to the Village
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Administrative Officer, Meelavittan and hence, he has every right to
insist that he should be heard in these proceedings. In any event,
the very concept of locus standi is foreign to criminal law. Anyone
can set the criminal law in motion. It is not necessary that he
should personally be aggrieved. In matters of public interest an
expansive view will have to be taken. He relied on the decisions
reported in (2016) 6 SCC 699 (Amanullah vs. State of Bihar),
Sathyavani Ponrani v. Samuel Raj (2010 (4) CTC 833), Rekha
Murarka v. The State of West Bengal (2020) 2 SCC 474 and
A.R.Antulay vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak and ors (1984) 2 SCC
500). He reminded the court that beach sand minerals are a
national treasure and that they cannot be exploited by private
interests and that is why, the Hon'ble First Bench issued a series
of directions in this regard.
5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the investigation is proceeding on the right lines
and that the intervention of M.S.Raja is unnecessary. He relied on
the decision reported in 2021 SAR (Cri) 309 (Sanjai Tiwari vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr). The learned counsel appearing
for the accused added that there is a serious dispute going on
between Thiru.Vaigundarajan and his brother Thiru.Jegadeesan
and that Thiru.Jegadeesan is waging a proxy war through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.Raja. The learned counsel questioned the bonafides of the
proposed intervenor. He placed reliance on the decisions reported
in (2017) 13 SCC 420 (Harsh Mandar vs. Amit Anilchandra
Shah and ors) and 2019 SCC Online Mad 2476 (Prisoners
Right Forum rep.by its Director P.Pugalendhi vs. State of
Tamil Nadu).
6.Crime No.332 of 2021 was registered on 20.08.2021. Four
days later, M.S.Raja sent a representation to various authorities
demanding the arrest of Thiru.Vaigundarajan and his sons. In this
representation, M.S.Raja did not claim that he was the one who
supplied information to the Village Administrative Officer,
Meelavittan. In his intervention petition filed before the Sessions
Court, Thoothukudi, he averred that he came to know that Crime
No.332 of 2021 has been registered against V.V.Titanium Pigments
Private Limited for having committed the offence of breaking open
and trespassing into the godown sealed by the Government and for
stealing the assessed mineral ilmenite. Having taken such a stand
before the Sessions Court, M.S.Raja cannot now plead before me
that he was the actual informant. It is commonly remarked that
one cannot ride two horses at the same time. But here the horses
are not only two but they are also going in opposite directions. At
more than one place, M.S.Raja had stated that he came to know
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
about this criminal case later and before me, he claims to be
'Suthradari'. A person taking such a mutually inconsistent stand
can neither be permitted to intervene nor be conferred with any
locus standi. I fail to understand as to how he could have
described himself as a victim in the cause title. Though there is
substantial public interest involved in this case, there is nothing to
show that the investigation has been derailed. No case has been
made out for transfer of investigation. I therefore dismiss all the
petitions filed by Thiru.M.S.Raja.
7.Even though this aspect of the matter was brought to my
notice at the very inception by Thiru.V.Lakshminarayanan, the
learned counsel appearing for the accused, I still heard
Shri.R.Anand, the learned counsel for M.S.Raja at length. The
Vedic injunction “let noble thoughts come to us from all directions”
holds good in this context also. In an adjudicatory process, the
Judge should welcome light from any quarter. If dirty linen is
washed in public by the two warring brothers, it is the prosecution
that stands to benefit. Even without formally permitting
intervention, it is open to the court to hear any person.
8.The impugned FIR is sought to be quashed primarily on the
ground that its registration was not preceded by any preliminary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enquiry. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 (Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and
Ors.) in this regard. According to the prosecution, the sealed
godown contained 72565.08 Mts of ilmenite and unless a physical
stock verification revealed shortfall, there cannot be an allegation
that there was unlawful removal of the mineral therefrom. In this
case, the prosecution had not satisfied itself in the first instance
that there was shortfall. If a preliminary enquiry had been
conducted as contemplated in Lalita Kumari's case, the FIR would
not have been registered at all. The learned counsel drew my
attention to the order dated 27.02.2020 made in WP(MD)Nos.
24396 and 22615 of 2019. In the writ petition filed by
V.V.Titanium Pigments Private Limited, a learned Judge of this
Court had held that MMDR Act cannot have any application to the
import of ilmenite mined outside the territory of India. It was also
noted that ilmenite is freely importable and the District Collector,
Thoothukudi District has no authority to interfere with its import
nor exercise the powers of central government. According to the
learned counsel, the mineral that has been seized pursuant to the
registration of the impugned FIR was imported and cleared by
Customs authority. He vehemently contended that the entire
prosecution has been engineered by Thiru.Jegadeesan, the
estranged brother of Thiru.Vaigundarajan. Since the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prosecution is manifestly attended by malafides, it is liable to be
quashed.
9.I am not persuaded by the aforesaid submissions.
Whether the failure to hold preliminary enquiry as contemplated in
Lalita Kumari would vitiate the registration of FIR has been
answered in the decision reported in (2019) 19 SCC 87 (State of
Telengana v. Managipet). The Apex Court pointed out that while
a preliminary enquiry may be conducted in cases pertaining to
matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence,
corruption cases etc., the judgment in Lalita Kumari does not state
that proceedings cannot be initiated against an accused without
conducting a preliminary enquiry. In Mukesh Singh v. State
(NCT of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120, it was noted that even
according to Lalita Kumari, “the word 'shall' used in Section 154
leaves no discretion in police officer to hold preliminary enquiry
before recording FIR. Use of expression “information” without any
qualification also denotes that police has to record information
despite it being unsatisfied by its reasonableness or credibility.
Therefore, the officer in charge of a police station has to reduce
such information alleging commission of a cognizable offence in
writing which may be termed as FIR and thereafter he is required
to further investigate the information, which is reduced in writing.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.The information lodged by the Village Administrative
Officer contained an allegation that there was theft of beach
mineral from a sealed godown. Theft is a cognizable offence.
Therefore, the first respondent had no option but to register the
impugned FIR.
11.Consideration of the contentions advanced by the learned
counsel for the accused would necessarily involve undertaking a
factual analysis. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.PC, I cannot do so. The accused have not produced any public
document of sterling and unimpeachable quality. That apart, the
investigation is at a very early stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in a recent decision reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918 (Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) has laid
down a set of parameters to govern the exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.Pc. It has been laid down that
investigation ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. I
therefore dismiss Crl OP(MD)No.14240 of 2021. All the defences of
the accused are left open. I have not gone into the merits of the
matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.In the result, all the Original Petitions are dismissed.
01.12.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
skm
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.332 of 2021)
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm
Crl OP(MD)Nos.13871, 14240, 14606,
14611 & 14614 of 2021
01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
