Mukid Ullah vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed, for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding of S.T. No.01/2017, pending before 1st

Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, for offence under Sections 465, 466 and 474 of IPC.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that, on the report of the Executive Magistrate, Ajaygarh, District

Panna dated 14. 10.2015, FIR at Crime No.272/2015 was lodged by Police Station Ajaygarh, for offence under Sections 465, 466 and 474 of the IPC.

The written complaint contain that in the intervening night of 7th and 8th, September, 2015, at about 12:30 AM, on a tip from the informer that,

minerals by illegal mining is being transported, the Executive Magistrate, Patwari Rambaran Patel, Patwari Pyare Singh Gond and Peon Rajendra

Prasad Tripathi conducted inspection and intimated the Police Control Room to send police staff. ASI Sharma and other police staff came to Pungari-

Chandora road. Two tractors carrying sand by illegal mining was being transported. Tractors having registration No. MP-35-AA-2510 and UP-90-E-

0562, were driven by the drivers Virendra and Rammilan without valid papers. Neither any ramanna (pass) was shown. It was informed to the

Executive Magistrate that the sand was being illegally obtained from Chandipathi and are being dumped at Pungari in the dumping place of Farhat

Hussain. Three cubic meters of sand was seized from each tractor. While this operation was being carried out, a Bolero having registration No. MP-

35-CA-1589, crossed the spot 2-3 times. Having suspicion, the said Bolero jeep was stopped and searched. During the search, under the seat cover, a

book (bandi) having Sr. No. 619751 to 619800 was found. 16 of the leafs were taken out and 34 of the leafs were empty. The counterfoils of the leaf

taken out are not filled up. Besides three other passes having Sr. No. 0359897, 620538 and 620550 were also found. In two passes, name of

Mohammad Hussain was written. The seal and signature were found in the bandi (pass), therefore, it could not be ascertained that who has issued

those passes. Having suspicion, the same was seized. The driver Mukid Ullah was interrogated. He informed the Executive Magistrate that the

vehicle belongs to Ishlahuin Nisha Baroli. The jeep was seized.

On 08.09.2015 at about 6 PM, the owner of the tractor produced two passes of dumping. The illegal transportation was found on the Chandora-

Pungari Road, which is 15 kms. away from the sand mine of which passes were given. When the passes were issued for Beera Mine, why the sand

was filled at Chandipathi Mine, could not be explained. Tractors having registration No. MP-35-AA-2510 and UP-90-E-0562 and Bolero having

registration No. MP-35-CA-1589 containing forged passes were sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajaygarh for necessary action with the request to

lodge FIR and take appropriate action.

The passes so seized were alleged to have been issued by the District Officer, Banda (UP). The same were sent to District Officer Banda, but, it

was found that neither the passes belong to District Banda, nor the seal of Mining Officer, Banda has been affixed on the passes. The passes

(0359897, 620538 and 620550) and the book (619751 to 619800) has not been issued by the Mining Officer, Banda. In this regard, Collector Panna has

issued a letter to Tehsildar on 07.10.2015. It was found that the said documents are forged, falsely prepared and are in possession of the petitioner,

Mukid Ullah to be used as genuine.

After filing of the chargesheet, the learned 1st A.S.J., Panna framed charge for offence under Section 465, 466 and 474 of IPC against the

petitioner Mukid Ullah.

The petitioner contended that the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. No prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for offence

under Section 465, 466 and 474 of IPC. Tehsildar has no authority to seize any vehicle under the Mines Act. Referring to the M.P. Minor Minerals

Rules, 1996, it is contended that the Collector, Additional Collector, Joint Director, Deputy Director, Mining Officer or Officer incharge of the Mining,

Section Officer, Incharge Flying Squad or Officer Authorized by Zila/Janpad, Gram Sabha are only the class one officer, who can only institute the

proceeding. The Collector or Additional Collector may authorize any officer not below the rank of Assistant Mining Officer to investigate the offence.

Therefore, the complainant Naib Tehsildar is not authorized to seize the vehicle. It is also contended that the ingredients of the offence charged are

not prima facie complete. The basic ingredients of the offence are missing. Hence, the petitioner, if, allowed to face rigmarole of criminal trial would

be totally unjustified.

On behalf of the respondent / State, the contentions are vehemently opposed and it is contended that the documents seized are purportedly to be

used as genuine for illegal transportation of sand and for illegal mining. Therefore, the order impugned framing charge do not call for any interference.

It is also contended that the petitioner is being prosecuted for offence under Section 465, 466 and 474 of IPC.

Perused the police diary and the charges framed by the learned trial Court.

It would be appropriate to mention here that, the petitioner is not being prosecuted for offence under the Mines and Minerals Act, he is being

prosecuted for offence under Section 465 of IPC for forgery, under Section 466 of IPC for forgery of record of Court or a public register and under

Section 474 of IPC for having in possession of documents described under Section 466 or 467 knowing it to be forged and intending to use as genuine.

The passes (ramanna) seized from the petitioner are not genuine passes. The book and passes seized from the Bolero, which was being driven by

the petitioner Mukid Ullah at the relevant time.

The basic elements of forgery are : (1) making of a false document or part of it (2) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the

Section (a) to cause damage or injury to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or (b) to support any claim or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with

property; or (d) to cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. The

documents which were seized from the custody when verified by the authorities whose name and seal of whose office were affixed, are denied being

of their office document and the seal of the Mining Officer, Banda is also forged. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that such documents are

kept without intention to use it.

The citations placed by learned counsel for the petitioner do not attract at this stage. The challenge to the authority for not empowered to sieze the

vehicle is of no avail. At this stage, for the reason that the petitioner is not being prosecuted for any violation of Mines and Minerals Act, but is being

prosecuted for making false documents and keeping it for using it to be genuine. The case law of Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj and another,

reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 522 and Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 are

not attracted in the present case.

So far as the framing of charge is concerned, at this stage, the Court has to see whether the material brought on record would reasonably connect

the accused with the crime. Nothing more is required to be enquired into. Only prima facie case has to be seen. The question whether the charges

have been proved or not can be determined only after the evidence is recorded in the case.

The standard of test and judgment which is finally applied before recording the finding of conviction against an accused is not to be applied at this

stage. It is just a very strong suspicion based on the material on record should sufficient to frame the charge.

The ratio of case laws, Ram Narain Poply vs Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2748, P. Vijayan vs State of Kerala and

another, reported in 2010 (1) CCSC 349 (SC) and State of Rajasthan vs Fatehkaran Mehdu, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 198 also do not apply in the

present case.

As regard to the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of Haryana and others vs Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in (1992) Suppl. SCC 335, do not apply in the present case because allegations

leveled, if controverted, and the evidence collected in support of the same discloses the commission of offence. The allegations are not absurd, nor it is

inherently improbable.

For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed.