Dismissed

Anand Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Dec 2020Cr.M.P./2400/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of FIRs alleging illegal mining and sand theft. The court held that prima facie offence was made out based on FIR allegations. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court ruled that FIRs cannot be quashed when an offence is established, dismissing the petitions.

What did the court decide?

No relief; petitions for quashing of FIRs dismissed on prima facie basis.

Anand Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Mining and Natural Resources | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2400 of 2020 With

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 2402 of 2020

¶3

-----Anand Kumar Singh ... Petitioner (Cr.M.P. No. 2400/2020) Akhilesh Singh … Petitioner (Cr.M.P. No. 2402/2020)

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The District Mining Officer, Jamtara. ….Opp. Parties (in both cases)

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN . Through: Video Conferencing

¶8

-----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate. For respondent-State : Mr. P.A.S Pati, S.C.-IV.

¶9

02/07.12.2020: The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11:00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

By way of filing these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of First Information Reports being Jamtara P.S. Case Nos. 101 and 103 of 2020 dated 15^th July, 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Rules 9 and 54 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (for short ‘Rules, 2017’), now the cases are pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.

¶12

These FIRs have been lodged by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara, alleging therein that on the direction of the superior authority, he constituted a team along with police personnel and raided the sand depots of the petitioners, where huge quantity of sand was stored. It has further been alleged that huge quantity of sand was also removed by the sand deport Licensees without Transport Challan, which is also violation of the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2017 as well as Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (as amended, 2017).

¶13

Counsel for the petitioners submits that no offence is made out against the petitioners. He further submits that there is a special law, which is governing the field of mining and minerals, thus no offence is made out against the petitioners under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He also submits that without proper inquiry, the FIRs have been lodged. He also submits that the entire search and seizure is nothing, but it is a table work. He further adds that if the date and time are seen in these cases, it will be understood that

¶14

within two and half hours, several search and seizure have been conducted in different depots and huge quantity of sands have been seized, which is practically improbably. He further submits that in these cases, it has been mentioned that in presence of one Ravindra Kumar Singh and Aadi Nath Mandal, all the search and seizure was conducted. These two persons are shown to be employees of all the owners against which the FIR’s are instituted, which is absolutely improbably. The contents of all the FIRs are same, which also creates a great doubt about the case of the prosecution.

¶15

The petitioners have prayed for quashing the First Information Reports being Jamtara P.S. Case Nos. 101 and 103 of 2020 dated 15^th July, 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Rules 9 and 54 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. The allegations in both FIRs are that the District Mining Officer, Jamtara, constituted Raiding Team along with police personnel and visited the Sand Depots of the petitioners where huge quantity of sand was stored. It is further alleged that huge quantity of sand was removed by the Sand Depot Licensees without using Transport Challan. Thus, the present FIRs have been lodged.

¶16

Section 57 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (as amended, 2017) provides for registration of FIR or complaint. The only embargo is that the same should be instituted by an authorized person. In these cases, I find that the FIRs have been lodged by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara, who is definitely an Authorized Officer under the Rules 2004, to lodge the FIR. Thus, it cannot be said that registration of the FIRs are illegal. So far as probability of search and seizure and the points raised by the petitioners are concerned, the same cannot be looked into at the stage of quashing of the First Information Report.

¶17

The allegation aforesaid definitely makes out offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj & Another versus K.P.S. Gill & Another , reported in (1995) 6 SCC 194 , Rajesh Bajaj versus State NCT of Delhi & Others , reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. versus Biological E Ltd. & Ors , reported in ( 2000) 3 SCC 269 has held that if prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint/FIR. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that if in a case prima facie an offence is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.

¶18

Considering the above proposition of law, I have gone through the First Information Reports. From perusal of the allegations in the First Information Reports, I find that the offence is definitely made out. So far as the defence of the petitioner is concerned, the same can only be seen after proper investigation. At this stage, when offence is made out, I am not inclined to quash the First Information Report.

¶19

These criminal miscellaneous petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶21

Anu/C.P.3.

Anand Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Ritu Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Santosh Kumar Das Alias Santosh Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhilesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tara Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand