Tapan Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure  with  the  prayer  to  quash  the  entire  criminal proceeding in connection with  Ranga P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 corresponding  to  G.R.  Case  No.  522  of  2023  including  the order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in connection with the  said  Ranga  P.S.  Case  No.  109  of  2022  corresponding  to  G.R. Case No. 522 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 379/411 of the  Indian  Penal  Code,  under  Section  21(1)  & 21(2)  of  the  Mines and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Act,  1957  and  Rule 4/54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 read with Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining,Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners abandon the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding so far as the offence punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned and only confine their prayer to quash the portion of the order dated 04.03.2024 so far as it  relates  to  the  cognizance  of  the  offences  punishable  under  the penal provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,  1957  and the penal  provisions under the Rules made thereunder are concerned.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of  a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manish Khemka Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) JLJR 720 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench taking note of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which is a special law providing for a particular manner of cognizance of the offences under the said Act or any Rules made thereunder i.e. a  complaint to be made by the person  authorized  on  behalf  by  the  Central  Government  or  State Government, held that prosecution in respect of the offences punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder, not by way of complaint but by way of information to the police is illegal and quashed the same.

In  this  respect,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  also  relies upon  another  Judgment  of  a Co-ordinate  Bench  of  this  Court  in the case of Calcutta Jaipur Paribahan Private Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) JLJR 78. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to the same  effect  is  the  Judgment  passed  in  the  case  of  Hare  Kant  Jha Vs.  State of Jharkhand and Another, reported  in 2015 (1) JLJR 717 and to the same effect is the Judgment passed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of  Mahendra Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2015 (3) JLJR 64. Hence, it is submitted that the modified prayer as  prayed for and mentioned in the foregoing paragraph of this judgement be allowed.

The learned counsel for the State has no serious objection so far as the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding only in respect of the offences punishable under the Mines and Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Act,  1956  and  the  Rules made thereunder is concerned. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the State, that there is no illegality so far as the prosecution of the petitioners in respect of the offences punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. Hence,  it  is  submitted  that  the  said  portion  of  the  cognizance  in respect of those offences be maintained.

Having  heard  the  submissions  made  at  the  Bar  and  after  going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this Court in the case of Manish Kumar Shah @ Manish  Kumar  Sah  vs.  The  State  of  Jharkhand  in  Cr.M.P.  No. 2753 of 2023 dated 01.05.2024, paragraph no. 10 of which reads as under:-

“10.  Having  heard  the  submissions  made  at  the  Bar  and after going through the materials in the record, in view of the principle of law settled both in the case of Jayant and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay (supra), as already referred to above  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs  of  the  Judgment,  this Court has no hesitation in holding that the law is well settled that cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act or any Rules made 2024:JHHC:30037 Cr.M.P. No.1739 of 2020 3 thereunder, can only be taken by a  court competent to take cognizance of such offence, only upon complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. In para -72 of the Judgment of Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the said Section 22 will not debar the State Police in registering cases for the  offences  punishable  under  Section  379  of  the  Indian Penal Code or any other offence which is punishable under the penal provision of law other than the penal provisions as mentioned in Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act or any Rules made thereunder; and the Magistrate can take cognizance of such  offences;  in  exercise  of  the  jurisdiction  vested  upon the  Magistrates  under  section  191  (1)  (d)  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure.”

has reiterated the settled principle of law that cognizance of the offences  punishable  under  the  penal  provision  of  the  Mines  and Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Act  or  any  Rules made thereunder, can only be taken by a court competent to take cognizance of such offence, only upon the complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government.

Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that  even  though  no  complaint  was  filed in  the  court  concerned but basing upon the F.I.R. lodged with the police and consequent upon submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance  of  the  offence  punishable  under  the  penal  provisions of  Mines  and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Act,  1957 and the Rules made thereunder.

Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in connection with the said Ranga P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 522 of 2023, so far as it relates  to  the  offences  punishable  under  Section  21(1)  & 21(2)  of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 4/54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 read with Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 being not sustainable in law is quashed and set aside in respect of the petitioners.

It is made clear that the order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in connection with the said Ranga P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 522 of 2023, so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained.

This  criminal  miscellaneous  petition  is  allowed  to  the  aforesaid extent only.