Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1100 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar Agrawal v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-20

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Deo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Deori P.S. Case No. 27 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 468 of 2013 registered u/s 414 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted under the said sections against the petitioner. It has also been submitted that there is no allegation with respect to the documents which were carried by the accused persons to have been forged and only on the allegation that the truck which was loaded with coal had been diverted as it was to go to Saria (Bagodar) whereas it was apprehended near a village Labania under Deori P.S. It has also been submitted that deviation in the route cannot constitute an offence under the IPC. So far as Section 21 of the MMDR Act is concerned, it has been submitted that as per Section 22 of the MMDR Act no cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act can be taken except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. It has also been submitted that in terms of Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a complaint does not include an F.I.R. and since the same is in direct conflict with the provisions of MMDR Act, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the documents which were in possession of the drivers of the truck were found to be genuine, but since the vehicle was being diverted and was apprehended near a village Labania under Deori P.S. which was 50 Km. away from Saria (Bagodar), there was a dishonest intention and therefore a criminal offence is clearly made out against the petitioner. 5. It appears that the F.I.R. had been instituted u/s 414 I.P.C. and Section 21 of the MMDR Act. away from Saria (Bagodar), there was a dishonest intention and therefore a criminal offence is clearly made out against the petitioner. 5. It appears that the F.I.R. had been instituted u/s 414 I.P.C. and Section 21 of the MMDR Act. The charge-sheet has also been submitted under the said sections. So far as institution of an F.I.R. under the provisions of MMDR Act is concerned there is a clear embargo of instituting an F.I.R. in terms of Section 22 of the MMDR Act as the said section envisages that 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 authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines a complaint which does not include a police report. Institution of an F.I.R. and that too by a person not authorized to do so in terms of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, criminal proceeding u/s 21 of the MMDR Act is itself bad in law. 6. So far as Section 414 IPC is concerned, the F.I.R. discloses that there was a deviation of the route as per the permit the vehicle was to go to Saria (Bagodar) but it was apprehended near a village Labania under Deori P.S. In the counter affidavit which has been filed based on the investigation carried out by the police, it has been stated that the witnesses whose statements have been recorded in Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the case diary have stated about deviation which had been made by the vehicle in question. Nothing has been revealed in course of investigation to suggest that the documents which was seized from the vehicle were forged. The only basis for instituting the F.I.R. is the deviation made by the vehicle. 7. In the case of Abhas Kumar Acksaria & others v. The State of Bihar & others [Cr.W.J.C. No. 33 of 1991 (R)], wherein the FI.R. was instituted on the ground that there had been deviation by the trucks carrying coal to a place other than its destination, the entire criminal proceedings were quashed while holding that such deviation cannot be a criminal offence either under the Indian Penal Code or the Essential Commodities Act. In the said case vide order dated 26.03.1991 a note of caution was also given to the concerned police officials not to harass the bona fide transporters of coal in such manner. 8. Adverting back to the issue at hand as has been stated above, the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is the deviation made by the vehicle. Such deviation cannot be by any stretch of imagination considered to be a criminal offence. 9. As a consequence to the discussions made herein above, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Deori P.S. Case No. 27 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 468 of 2013 registered u/s 414 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih is hereby quashed.