Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 130 (RAJ)

Gopal Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-01-19

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court. 2. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred for quashing of FIR No.0064/2020 registered at Police Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara for the offence under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4 & 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; FIR No.0100 dated 25.06.2020 registered at Police Station Luni, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 379 & 447 IPC and Sections 4 & 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; and FIR No.0241/2020 registered at Police Station Gangrar, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Section 379 IPC. 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners made a categorical statement that the matters pertain to a special provision i.e. the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, and therefore, the prosecution for the offence under Section 379 IPC cannot be proceeded with against the present petitioners. 4. Learned counsels for the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in D. Sudharshan Vs. State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam, Police Station, Kanyakumari reported in 2006 0 Supreme (Mad.) 915 and K. Subramani & Ors. Vs. State, reported in 2006 (4) Crimes 521. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kan war Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.10707 of 2019 decided on 18.12.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under: "12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we would uphold the order of the High Court refusing to set aside the prosecution and cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. We would, however, clarify that prosecution and cognizance under Section 21 read with Section 4 of the Mines Regulation Act will not be valid and justified in the absence of the authorisation. Further, our observations in deciding and answering the legal issue before us should not be treated as findings on the factual allegations made in the complaint. We would, however, clarify that prosecution and cognizance under Section 21 read with Section 4 of the Mines Regulation Act will not be valid and justified in the absence of the authorisation. Further, our observations in deciding and answering the legal issue before us should not be treated as findings on the factual allegations made in the complaint. The trial court would independently apply its mind to the factual allegations and decide the charge in accordance with law. In light of the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed, as we have upheld the prosecution and cognizance of the offence under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. There would be no order as to costs." 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners thereafter, tried to demonstrate on facts that the no offence against the present petitioners is made out. 7. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar, is of the clear opinion that in the case of Kanwar Pal Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the prosecution and the cognizance taken under Section 379 IPC is permissible in law. As far as the disputed facts are concerned, the same are undergoing investigation, and thus, need not be gone into by this Court, at this stage. 8. In view of the above, the present petitions are dismissed. The stay applications also stand dismissed accordingly. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the present petitions is made on the basis of the legal issues before this Court and may not be treated as a finding on factual allegations. For factual allegations, it shall be open for the petitioners to submit appropriate representation before the concerned authorities, which shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. 9. Let a copy of this order be placed in each file.