CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohd. Raza Khan vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 14 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 JH CK 0032

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 — Rule 54 · Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 — Section 21 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120, 411, 420
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 388 words

1

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

1.

Heard Mr. Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R being Ketar P.S.Case No.48 of 2020, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, under section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and section 379, 411, 420, 120 and 34 of the I.P.C., pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the M.M.D.R. Act is concerned, only the complaint can be maintained, however, the FIR has been registered and he further submits that in view of the matter atleast that part of the FIR may be quashed.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the FIR, no case has been made out and in view of that, the FIR may kindly be quashed. He submits that specific role of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR and in view of that, the FIR is fit to be quashed. He submits that the case against the petitioner is not made out. He further submits that only the FIR is under challenge and even the charge sheet is not submitted as yet.

5.

In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that there are allegations of illegally carrying sand in question and in view of that, the case has been registered. There is also seizure of machineries and vehicles and that is why, the FIR has been registered. However, in view of paragraph no.21.4 of the judgment in case of Jayant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670, this petition is being disposed of. Once the investigation is completed, the follow-up action shall be taken in light of paragraph no.21.4 of the said judgment.

6.

This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

7.

The Court in not inclined to quash the F.I.R as there are allegations and there are parameters of quashing of the FIR. The case of the petitioner is not coming within any of the parameters as held in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, (1992) 1 Supp. 335.