Petitioners sought to quash a criminal cognizance order. The High Court held there was no jurisdictional error, as IPC cognizance was not barred by the Minerals Rules, and a separate case by another department did not affect validity. The application was dismissed.
Application for quashing of the order dated 10.10.2019 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11527 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2017 Thana- NAUTAN District- Siwan
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Venkatesh Kirti For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
the order 16.10.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Nautan P.S.Case No. 203 of 2018, whereby he has taken cognizance against all the accused persons under Sections 420, 379 and 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summon against them.
As per prosecution case, the informant got an information that some persons were illegally mining the white sand. The informant along with police party went to the place of occurrence. Five tractors were seized loaded with illegally
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11527 of 2021(3) dt.19-05-2022 2/3
mined sand.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no cognizance can be taken under the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019, hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Rules’, except upon a written complaint made in writing by the Competent Officer or Dy. Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Director of Mines or any other officer empowered by the Government.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has not taken cognizance under the Rules, as mentioned in Rule 61, rather the cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 379 and 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, that cognizance cannot be said to be barred under Rule 61 of the Rules.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted further for the same offence, a separate case has been filed by the Canal Department, a copy whereof has been annexed at page 34 of the brief.
Merely because a separate case has been lodged, the cognizance order cannot be rendered as illegal or suffering from jurisdictional.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11527 of 2021(3) dt.19-05-2022 3/3
I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned
order which makes the order liable to be quashed.
With these observations, the application is dismissed.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
HR/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court committed jurisdictional error by taking cognizance under IPC instead of under the specific Rules.
Whether the filing of a separate case by the Canal Department renders the current cognizance order illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N/AReferred
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Aniruddh Singh
Saroj Singh
The State of Bihar
Krishna Prasad Gupta
The Department of Mines and Mineral
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
