Dismissed

Abdul Karim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2020CRLP/11117/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR for illegal river bed mining. Noting the IPC charge of theft, it held the FIR cannot be quashed. The court directed the investigating officer to proceed regarding the Mines and Minerals Act charges.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR dismissed; investigating officer directed to initiate proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act.

Abdul Karim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11117 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Abdul Karim And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 06.08.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 335 of 2020, under Sections 379 IPC, Section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 P.S. Swar, District Rampur.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned first information report is in respect of illegal mining and removal of minerals from the river bed.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that an offence under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act can be instituted only on a complaint of a specified public servant and therefore the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed.

¶9

The contention of the learned AGA is that the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 provides a specific procedure for lodging of a complaint in respect of offences under the said Act but in respect of theft and other offences first information report can be lodged.

¶10

It has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) VS. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 , that in matters relating to removal of minerals from river bed, without mining licence or permit, offence of theft is also made out.

¶11

As one of the charging section is under Section 379 I.P.C., the prayer to quash the first information report cannot be accepted. With regard to offence punishable under the Mines and Mineral Act, it is expected that the investigating officer shall look into the matter and take appropriate steps as per the decision of the Apex Court noticed above.

¶12

Subject to above, the petition stands disposed off .

¶13

Order Date :- 20.10.2020 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Abdul Karim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Karim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asif and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anju Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

America Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akhtar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Usha Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Madanpal Malik and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others