Quashed

Ajayan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2016Crl.MC/7447/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a mining case held before a Judicial Magistrate. It ruled that no valid government complaint was filed, as required by the MMDR Act, making police reports insufficient for taking cognizance. Proceedings were quashed, though a competent officer may later file a proper complaint.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 1088 of 2015 were quashed as no valid complaint was filed for offences under the MMDR Act.

Ajayan Vs State of Kerala — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/11TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7447 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1427/2014 OF VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

AJAYAN,

¶9

S/O.MADHAVAN,KIZHUPPULLI VEEDU,THRIKKUR DESOM, THRIKKUR VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 7447 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1427/2014 OF WADAKANCHERY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶19

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN CRIME NO.1427/2014 OF WADAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶20

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2016 IN CRL.M.C.2364 OF 2016.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶26

- - - - Crl.M.C. No. 7447 of 2016

¶27

- - - - Dated 2^nd November, 2016

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

1.The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1088 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakanchery. The aforesaid case has been taken cognizance of by the court below for the offence punishable under Section 4(1) read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MMDR Act, 1957” for brevity) on the basis of Annexure-2 final report laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Wadakanchery Police Station.

¶31

2.It is beyond cavil that for a Court to take cognizance of any offence punishable under the MMDR Act, 1957, a complaint in writing is to be made by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. No such complaint as mandated under law has been filed in the instant case so as to enable the Court

¶32

Crl.M.C. No.7447 of 2016 -2-

¶33

to take cognizance of the offence. Annexure-2 final report laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Wadakanchery will not satisfy the requirement under the Act. This said view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Digil and Another v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam Police Station (2013 (1) KLT 600), and in a slew of other cases.

¶34

3.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1088 of 2015 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakanchery are quashed. However, the fact that the cognizance taken is quashed would not be a bar to lodging of a complaint by a competent officer as provided under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957, if the same can be maintained under law.

¶35

This petition is disposed off. Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶37

kp/-5.11.16

Ajayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajayan v. State of Kerala

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

Yacob . M.O Vs State of Kerala

Ismail a Vs Naduppattil Aboobacker

Rahim Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Jagadeesh Chandran Vs Biju Antony

Krishnakutty Vs State of Kerala

Sooraj Vs State of Kerala