Manoj Babu v. The state of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Oct 2025CRL OP(MD)/14895/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment of FIR; illegal sand digging; attempted theft of minerals; tractor and JCB; Kadambur Police Station, Thoothukudi District; Crime No.309 of 2020; Sections 379 r/w 511 IPC; Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act; police lack jurisdiction to file final report for mining offence; cognizance only on complaint of authorized officer; Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C limitation of three years; final report not filed for five years; time-barred final report; Section 482 CrPC petition allowed; Justice Sunder Mohan; 24.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR in Crime No.309 of 2020 quashed; Criminal Original Petition allowed; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶¶40

Manoj Babu Vs The state of Tamilnadu, Rep. by… — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned FIR in Crime No.309 of 2020 quashed; Criminal Original Petition allowed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.309 of 2020 (offences under Sections 379 r/w 511 IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act) should be quashed in so far as the petitioners are concerned. +2 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

The final report was not filed even after five years without justifiable reason; no other offences are made out and the petitioners have no bad antecedents; even if the respondents were now allowed to file the final report it would be barred by limitation, so no useful purpose would be served in keeping the impugned FIR pending investigation, and the FIR is quashed.

¶¶40

Ratio / Principle

The respondent police have no jurisdiction to file the final report for the offence under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act; the Court can take cognizance of that offence only on the complaint of an authorized officer.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

Since the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 379 IPC is three years imprisonment, the police ought to have filed the final report within three years of the occurrence on 20.06.2020, the limitation under Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C being three years.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Sunder Mohan, J.), 24.10.2025 — CRL OP(MD) No.14895 of 2025: Allowed a Section 482 CrPC petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No.309 of 2020 of Kadambur Police Station, Thoothukudi District, registered for offences under Sections 379 r/w 511 IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act, arising from an alleged attempt to commit theft of minerals by digging sand with a tractor and a JCB on 20.06.2020. Held: (i) the police have no jurisdiction to file a final report for an offence under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act, cognizance of which can be taken only on the complaint of an authorized officer; (ii) as the maximum sentence under Section 379 IPC is three years, the final report had to be filed within three years (limitation under Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C); the police filed nothing for over five years without justification, so any final report now would be time-barred and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR pending. Connected miscellaneous petition closed. Note: the order body once refers to the FIR as 'Crime No.79 of 2020', while the prayer and the quashing recital say 'Crime No.309 of 2020'; reproduced as printed.

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.14895 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 24/10/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.14895 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.12102 of 2025

¶7

Manoj Babu,

¶8

Murugesan,

¶9

Murugesan,

¶10

Paramasivan,

¶11

Parthiban,

¶12

Mariselvam, ... Petitioners

¶13

¶14

The Inspector of Police, Kadambur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶15

R.Ebenezer,, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadambur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.. ... Respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.14895 of 2025

¶19

PRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in connection with the FIR in Crime No.309 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Vaigunth

¶21

For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition has been filed seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No.79 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the offences under Sections 379 r/w 511 of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act.

¶24

The allegation is that the petitioners were found digging sand

¶25

with the help of tractor and a JCB and hence attempted to commit theft of

¶26

minerals.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as the respondents have not filed a final report so far; that the respondent police ought to have filed the final

¶28

2/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CRL OP(MD). No.14895 of 2025

¶31

report within a period of three years, as the maximum sentence that can

¶32

be imposed for the offence under Section 379 IPC is three years imprisonment; that the limitation provided under Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C is three years; and that the respondent police have no jurisdiction to file the final report for the offence under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act.

¶33

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would fairly submit that the final report has not been filed so far; that the respondent police have no justifiable reason for the delay; that no other offences are made out on the allegation made in the FIR and that the petitioners have no previous antecedents.

¶34

It is well settled that the respondent police have no jurisdiction to file the final report for the offence under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act and that the Court can take cognizance of the said offence only on the complaint of an authorized officer.

¶35

3/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

CRL OP(MD). No.14895 of 2025

¶38

As regards the offence under Section 379 IPC, it is seen that the

¶39

alleged occurrence took place on 20.06.2020. The police ought to have filed the final report within a period of three years, as the maximum sentence that can be imposed for the offence under Section 379 IPC is three years imprisonment. The limitation provided under Section 468(2) (b) of Cr.P.C is three years.

¶40

The respondent police have not filed the final report, even after five years and they have no justifiable reason for the delay. No other offences are made out against on the petitioners. The petitioners have no bad antecedents. This Court is of the view that even if the respondents are allowed to file the final report, at this stage, it would be barred by limitation and that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the impugned FIR pending investigation. Accordingly, the impugned FIR in Crime No.309 of 2020 is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

24.10.2025

TTA / ARS

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

CRL OP(MD). No.14895 of 2025

¶46

¶47