Lalan Singh @ Lalan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar, Through The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2231 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1290 of 2022
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2021 Thana- HULASGANJ District- Jehanabad
     ======================================================

Lalan Singh @ Lalan Kumar Son of Shree Ram Singh Resident of Village- Kandaul, P.S.- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Mines and Minerals Cum competent authority, Department of Mines and Minerals Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Competent Authority, the District Mining Office, Jehanabad Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.

Ms. Kalpana, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Ac to Ga-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-05-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the Mines Department and learned counsel for the

State.

Counsel for the petitioner has filed the present

criminal writ application with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. being

Hulasganj P.S. Case No. 104 of 2021 dated 17.07.2021

registered under Sections 379, 411, 34 of the I.P.C. instituted by

the Competent Authority, District Mining Office, Jehanabad.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1290 of 2022 dt.09-05-2023

contents of the F.I.R., it is very much clear that the authorities

who have filed the complaint is the Competent Authority,

District Mining Office, Jehanabad. Counsel has put emphasis

that according to Mines and Mineral Act and Rules, the case has

to be filed by virtue of complaint as Section 22 of the said Act

talks about that 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 authorized in this

behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.

Counsel submits that on this technical ground, this

F.I.R. is fit to be quashed.

Counsel for the Mines Department submits that a

detailed counter affidavit has been filed in which the latest

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

decided in Cr. Appeal No. 1920 on 2019 (arising out of S.L.P.

(Criminal) No. 10707 of 2019) has been annexed as

Annexure-A in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased to

hold that even, if only complaint is permissible for violation of

matters relating to Mines Rules and Regulations, then also the

case filed under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/ 4 of

the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1290 of 2022 dt.09-05-2023

maintainable.

Counsel for the Mines Department submits that

since this case has been filed under Section 379 of the I.P.C.,

then it is not fit to be quashed and it should continue.

Counsel for the petitioner submits in response

thereof that from the seizure list, it transpires that sand has not

been recovered from his tractor and at the time of seizure, the

tractor was empty. In response thereof, counsel for the Mines

Department submits only two points. The first point is that

petitioner has criminal antecedent of doing the same act and the

second point is that the definition of theft as mentioned in

Section 378 of the I.P.C. that whoever intending to take

dishonestly any movable property out of possession of any

person without person's consent moves the property in order to

such taking is said to commit theft.

This Court is of the view that there are certain

factual aspects which are admitted. Firstly, that the petitioner

was not competent to collect the movable property i.e. sand,

secondly, the petitioner was trying to remove the sand from the

possession of his owner i.e. the Mines Department without the

consent of Mines Department. It is also there that the sand

which was kept at one place, at the time of raid was dropped by Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1290 of 2022 dt.09-05-2023

the petitioner at other place. Meaning thereby, without his

permission the movable property has been shifted from one

place to another.

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view

that offence of theft has been made and, therefore, not inclined

to grant any relief(s).

With this observation, the present criminal writ

application stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date