Disposed

Shahabuddin v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2016CRLMP/1108/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of FIR for Rajasthan Forest Act and IPC offences, claiming mining permitted was issued. Court directed Investigating Agency to verify permit's validity and subsistence before finalizing investigation report.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Investigating Agency to verify mining permit and submit final report of investigation in court of competent jurisdiction after verifying permit.

Shahabuddin Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

S.B. CMP No. 1108/ 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1108/2016 Shahabuddin vs. State of Rajasthan

¶5

Date of Order:- 6^th July, 2016

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶7

Mr. Md. Shakir Khan, for the petitioner. Mr. Aladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶8

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 303/ 2013 dated 17.12.2013 registered at Police Station Chaupanki, District Alwar, for the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of Raj asthan Forest Act, 1953 and Section 279, 336, 379 and 120B IPC.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only reason for petitioner is being prosecuted is that the petitioner could not produce permit before the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the FIR it is averred as under:-

¶10

“ एक ड�पर को चेक करने पर उस म� कोइ कागजात, टी. पी. व रव�ना नहीं िमले अतः ड�पर चालक का यह कृ�य अपराध धरा 279, 336, 379, 120-B IPC व 41, 42 फारे�ट एक्ट का अपराध पाया जाने पर ड�पर को मौके पर मय वन उपज प�थर के ज� कर क�ज़ा पुिलस िलया गया| ”

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mining permit was issued in favour of the petitioner and on the basis thereof, he had carried mining operations. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-2 Mining Permit to fortify his statement that the mining activity carried by the petitioner was

¶12

S.B. CMP No. 1108/ 2016

¶13

¶14

wholly legal. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated at Bar that till today, no charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating agency.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the Investigating Agency to verify mining permit (Ravanna) Annexure-2, and in case during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer comes to conclusion that the Annexure-2 is a valid permit issued in favour of the petitioner and was subsisting on the day of occurrence, the investiging officer after taking into consideration mining permit (Annexure-2), shall formulate his final opinion and submit report of investigation in the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶16

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶17

Mak/

¶18

¶19

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.” Anil Makawana P.A.

Shahabuddin v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahabuddin v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Chandra Kant SHARMAandANR Vs L I C and Ors.

J D a through Secretary Vs Nanag Ram Saini and Ors.

National Insurnce Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Geeta and Ors.

Virendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Chandgi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bhoora Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp