Allowed

Prakash Kumar Agarwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2023W.P.(Cr.)/448/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for illegal mining and transportation of coal. The court held that the complaint case relied on a suspension order that was later set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, making the prosecution unsustainable in law.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 2910 of 2022, including the order taking cognizance dated 18.2.2022, is quashed.

Prakash Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

W.P.(Cr.) No. 448 of 2023

¶5

----

¶6

Prakash Kumar Agarwal @ Prakash Kumar Agrawal.... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate ----

¶10

3 /22.08.2023 Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶11

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P.Case No.2910 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 18.2.2022 contained in Annexure-2, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the complaint was filed alleging therein that on 16.12.2021 at about 6.30 a.m. the DMO Mihir Kumar Salkar and others along with investigating officer of Nirsa P.S.Case No.329 of 2021 conducted an inspection at plant of Tetulia Coke (P) Ltd. and found 2011.243 tonnes coal minerals at that plant. It is further alleged that on 13.11.2021 a raid was conducted on the said plant and 1164 tonnes coal was found and they have not produced valid transport challan and as such the sadi coal was seized and Nirsa P.S.Case No.329 of 2021 has been registered and the dealer registration was suspended.

¶12

¶13

However, on 16.12.2021 the team went to do the inspection of the said premises/plant and they found active coke oven and after measurement found 847 tonnes excess minerals from the previously seized mineral. They did not show valid transport challan as such the excessive coal was seized and given in zimanama. It is further alleged that the complainant has issued a letter no.2523/M dated 18.12.2021 and demanded the valid documents regarding the excessive coal and again sent reminder letter no.2619/M dated 31.12.2021 for same. The petitioners replied on 28.01.2022 but did not give valid document as their reply was rejected and complainant demanded the valid transport challan under letter no.251/M dated 31.02.2022 and the petitioners replied on 04.02.2022 but they did not produce the challan of excess coal. As such they illegally procured the minerals and violated the MMDR Act 1957 and Rule 7 of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storate) Rules, 2017 which is punishable under Rule 13.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for identical issue the case has already been filed against the petitioner which is Nirsa P.S.Case No.329 of 2021 which is pending for investigation and final for. He submits that the present complaint has been filed only on the strength and in view of Rule 8(3) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. The license of the petitioner with regard to the processing of coal has already been suspended. He submits that apart from that, there is no allegation and only on that ground that during suspension period, the factory was being operated and the complaint case has been lodged. He submits that in the said complaint, the registration of earlier case has already been disclosed therein. He further submits that so far the first FIR is concerned, the coal in question has already been released to the petitioner by the learned court finding the document valid. He further

¶15

¶16

submits that the suspension was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 18.10.2022 has been pleased to set aside the said suspension and remanded the matter back to the competent authority to decide afresh after providing proper opportunity to the petitioner. He submits that subsequently, the show cause notice issued by the competent authority was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.764 of 2023. He submits that the said writ petition was not entertained, however, the observation was made that the show cause of the petitioner will be considered and thereafter only the appropriate speaking order will be passed. He submits that the said proceeding is going on and the petitioner is participating in the same.

¶17

Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the license of the petitioner was suspended and he was operating the factory and that is why the complaint case has been filed and the learned court has already taken cognizance and this Court may not interfere at this stage.

¶18

In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court finds that for filing of the complaint case, the reasons has been disclosed therein that during suspension period, the factory was being operated by the petitioner. The said suspension was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner who has been pleased to set aside the said suspension order by order dated 18.10.2022 and remanded the matter back to the competent authority to decide it afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Subsequently, the competent authority issued show cause to the petitioner that was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.764 of 2023 and the Division Bench of this Court not interfered with the writ petition, however, observation was made to take decision after considering the show cause of the petitioner and the

¶19

¶20

said proceeding is still going on and further the petitioner is participating in the said proceeding. The basis of the lodging of the complaint is not sustaining in the eye of law and if the foundation itself is not there, based on that, the prosecution is bad in eye of law.

¶21

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P.Case No.2910 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 18.2.2022 contained in Annexure-2 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is quashed.

¶22

W.P.(Cr.) No. 448 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.

¶23

This Court has not given any opinion with regard to the subject matter of Nirsa P.S.Case No.329 of 2021.

¶24

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶25

SI/

Prakash Kumar Agarwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Kumar Agarwal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Tiwary Alias Bikash Tiwary Alias Bikash Nath Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Sidharth Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Iltush Ahamad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Smt Pulkeria Bhengraj Alias Anna Orea Vs the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ahd

Ranjit Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand