Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6429/2022
1. Gajendra Singh S/o Malam Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
Pratapgarh, Vill. Tibna, Teh. Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur.
2. Sumer Singh S/o Rewat Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Vill. Bastwa Sundo Ka Bass, Teh. Balesar, Dist. Jodhpur.
3. Gyan Singh S/o Kalyan Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Pratapgarh, Vill. Tibna, Teh. Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur.
4. Bheru Singh S/o Dohlat Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Vill.
Khirja Aasha, Teh. Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
2. Ashish Soni S/o Ramniwas, Jatawas Moti Chok, P.S.
Sadar Bajar, Dist. Jodhpur, Presently Posted At Mining
Dept. Balesar, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, Public Prosecutor
Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol for Mining
Department
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
11/10/2022
1. Present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, lays challenge to the FIR No.235/2022,
dated 22.08.2022, registered at P.S. Shergarh, District Jodhpur
alleging offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code so
also sections 4 & 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the MMDR Act,
1957").
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6429/2022]
2. Mr. Trilok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners argues
that the offence under the provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 is non-
cognizable and thus, police cannot register the FIR under the
provisions of MMDR Act, 1957.
3. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon the
recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Jayant Etc. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh : Criminal
Appeal No.824-825 of 2020 decided on 03.12.2020.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that
the FIR in question alleges illegal act(s) of the petitioners which
may constitute separate offences under the provisions of Indian
Penal Code as well as MMDR Act, 1957 and thus, the Investigating
Officer was legally justified in registering the FIR.
5. It is further contended that after the investigation, if it is
found that the offence under the provisions of MMDR Act, 1957
has also been made out against the petitioners, then, in light of
the aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the
Mining Department can well file a complaint as required under the
MMDR Act, 1957.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admit. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also.
8. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice
on behalf of the State.
9. Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, who usually appears for Mining
Department is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent
No.2.
10. Mr. Jasol prays for and is granted four weeks' time complete
his instructions.
11. List this case on 22.11.2022.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6429/2022]
12. Till then, the Investigating Officer shall be restrained from
filing charge-sheet in relation to any offence under the provisions
of MMDR Act, 1957. He will however be free to file charge-sheet
for the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, if so
required.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
118-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
