Madras High Court
Rajendran vs State Represented By on 7 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1984 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 07.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1984 of 2020
in
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.984 of 2020
Rajendran ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by,
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Malli Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
2. Periyasamy ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in the case in Crime No.136/2019 on the file of the 1st
respondent and quash the same as against the Petitioner/Accused as illegal,
violation of law.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1984 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records
connected with the impugned F.I.R in Crime No. 136 of 2019, on the file of the
first respondent and quash the same.
2.According to the case of prosecution the petitioner is the owner of the
land comprised in Survey No.38/1 at Ayan Nachiyarkovil Village, Srivilliputhur
Taluk, Virudhunagar District. The allegation is that the vehicle of the petitioner
was loaded with ¾ unit of red sand, illegally without any possessory license, by
his driver. When the petitioner excavated the red sand from his own land, the
offence under section 379 IPC will not attract, since no theft was made out.
3.In sofaras the offence under Section 21(5) Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is concerned, the second respondent
lodged complaint and the same has been registered by the first respondent for
the offence punishable under Section 21(5), 23 of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Under Section 22 of Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules 2007, it is the
duty of the competent authority or person authorized in that behalf by the
Central Government or State Government to file a complaint before the Court to
take action against the person under the Act. Therefore, the first respondent has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1984 of 2020
no say in the offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014(9) Supreme Court Cases
772, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
“5. Criminal Appeal Nos. 2108-2112 of 2013 In these cases,
appellants are the owners of Murlidhar Stone Industries
and were granted quarry lease in the seam of Village
Thoriwari for excavation of mines and minerals on payment
of royalty. The appellants challenged the legality and
validity of mining complaint lodged by the State geologist
against them for offences under Section 379/114 of IPC and
under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. The appellants sought
an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the
criminal proceedings on the same ground that Section 22 of
the Act prohibits registration of FIR with respect to offences
punishable under the said MMDR Act.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1984 of 2020
In 2019 SCC Online Ori 226, it is held that
"16. The aforesaid provisions contained in Section 22 of
the MMDR Act and Rule 15 of the 2007 Rules, makes it
abundantly clear that no Court shall take cognizance of
offence punishable under the said Act or the 2007 Rules
made thereunder, except upon a complaint in writing made
by the competent authority or person authorized in that
behalf by the Central Government or the State
Government.
17. The aforesaid provisions of the Act and the 2007 Rules
clearly provide that criminal prosecution can be launched
only on the basis of a written complaint filed in that
regard by the competent authority or the person
authorized in that behalf and not otherwise. Hence a
reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that no
FIR can be registered by the police for any offence
committed under Section 21 of the MMDR Act and the
said provision does not contemplate investigation in a
normal way by the police on the basis of an FIR but only
on the written complaint to be presented to the concerned
Court."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1984 of 2020
5.In view of the above, the first information report cannot be sustained as
against the petitioner and it is liable to be quashed. However, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is completed and
the respondent police about to file final report before the competent Court.
While admitting this petition, already interim stay granted and as if the first
respondent completed investigation and yet to file final report.
6.Accordingly, the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.136
of 2019 and all proceedings on the file of the first respondent is quashed and
this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PNM
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1984 of 2020
To:
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Malli Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1984 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1984 of 2020
in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.984 of 2020
07.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
