Dheeraj Agrawal Vs The State Of Jharkhand

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 25.03.2015 in connection with Noamundi P.S. Case No.31/2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.363/2014, pending in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Chaibasa.

¶11

The FIR was registered alleging therein that while on inspection on 15.06.2014 at around 12:30 P.M., near BSNL Office, which is situated at Hatgamaharia-Baraiburu Road, started checking 32 vehicles loaded with iron ores. During the said inspection, the same vehicles were not having the Transit Challan, it has been given in the FIR and as such total of 7 vehicles drivers could not show Transit Challan, issued by the Mining Department and as such the drivers were apprehended. It was stated that the vehicle owners, vehicle drivers and the crusher owners from where the iron ores were loaded without Transit Challans are made accused and proper legal action should be taken against them.

¶12

Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the drivers, who were apprehended along with truck loaded with iron ores was from 12:50 P.M., whereas, the inspection has been shown to start

¶13

2

¶14

Cr.M.P. No. 809 of 2016

¶15

from 12:30 P.M. onwards. He further submits that the transit challans were already issued prior to the apprehension of the trucks and the inspection made by the Mining Officers were not in accordance with law. He submits that the FIR was registered, however, in light of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, only complaint can be maintained. He also submits that even finding the documents correct with regard to seized iron ore, the same has been released by the learned Court vide order dated 03.07.2014. He submits that in view of release of iron ore in favour of the petitioner, it is crystal clear that falsely the present case has been filed against the petitioner.

¶16

On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that although iron ore was released in favour of the petitioner, however, allegations are there and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner.

¶17

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR and finds that admittedly the case has been registered for transportation of iron ore. The said iron ore has already been released in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 03.07.2014 considering the report of the Investigating Officer. Thus, it appears that the case has been wrongly filed against the petitioner.

¶18

Further coming to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, it appears that Section 22 of the Act speaks of cognizance of offence which reads as under:

¶19

“22. Cognizance of offence:- 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. ”

¶20

3

¶21

Cr.M.P. No. 809 of 2016

¶22

Looking into the aforesaid provisions such as Act and Rule which provides complaint in writing made by a person authorized. The word ‘complaint’ has been defined under clause (d) of Section 2 of Cr.P.C which reads as under:

¶23

“2 (d) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. ”

¶24

Thus, if a complaint is being filed it must be made to the Magistrate

¶25

and it must be with a view to his taking action under the Code. It must contain an allegation that some person whether known or unknown has committed an offence. It must not be report of the police officer. Admittedly in the case in hand complaint is not filed before the learned Magistrate in view of that it cannot be said that the said F.I.R. is complaint in view of Clause 2 (d) of Cr.P.C.

¶26

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 25.03.2015 in connection with Noamundi P.S. Case No.31/2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.363/2014, pending in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Chaibasa are quashed.

¶27

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶28

Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.

¶29

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

Ajay/

Dheeraj Agrawal v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Agrawal v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pado Das And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kavita Devi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mahadeo Mahto And Ors. Vs Santi Devi And Anr.

Arun Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Pappu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md Nur Alam Alias Md Noor Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.