Yunus Khan vs State Of Jharkhand `

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Burmu P.S. Case No.20 of 2024 registered under Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule 4/30/31/32/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and Section 25 and 21 of Water Pollution Act, 1974 & Air Pollution Act, 1981 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

The FIR was registered alleging therein that a team which was constituted for the purpose of inspecting brick kiln, has visited village Burmu for the purpose of inspection of different brick kiln situated within

Mauza Burmu. It is stated that in course of inspection dated 02.04.2024 as many as 17 kilns were inspected and it is alleged that during inspection the consent to operate and license has not been found in the brick kiln of the petitioner. It is also stated that no certificate has been found from the JPCB in respect of the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is also alleged that concerned kiln has not followed the notification of Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change dated 22.02.2002 and it is further alleged that the required zig zag technique or vertical shaft has also not been found in the brick kiln of the petitioner. On the basis of the said written report of respondent No.3 a case under Sections 4/21 of Jharkhand Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Sections 4/30/31/32/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and Section 25 and 21 of Water Pollution Act, 1974 & Air Pollution Act, 1981.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that prior to filing of the present FIR earlier Jharkhand State Pollution Board has filed a Complaint Case No.2189 of 2022 for the alleged offence committed under Section 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 alleging that the petitioner has established moving chimney bulls instead of zig zag technology or vertical shaft chimney. He submits that the case is still pending and now the present FIR has been lodged by Mines Inspector alleging that consent to operate and other clearance are not there. He submits that Annexure-4 is a document of Environment Clearance and Annexure-5 is consent to operate. He submits in spite of that the present case has been filed that too by the Mining Department. He submits that if case is arising out of Environment Pollution Act only complaint can be maintained in light of Section 16 of the Environment Protection Act wherein the FIR has been lodged. He further submits that the firm is not made accused which is one of the requirement in light of Section 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. He then submits that if the firm is made accused, the person who is looking day to day affairs on the company can be made an accused, however that is also not fulfilled in present case.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the case is made out and in view of that the FIR has rightly been lodged.

In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the allegations are made in the FIR that the consent to operate and other clearance are not there and only by way of zig zag technology the said unit can run. Annexure-2 is the Complaint Case No.2189 of 2022 wherein the same has been filed with regard to not using the technology of zig zag. There are documents on the record contained in Annexure 4 and 5 which are consent to operate and Environment Clearance and in view of that the allegations are not tenable which are the subject matter of the FIR. So far zig zag technology is concerned one complaint case is already pending, further, if any wrong is done by firm or company that company is required to be made an accused in light of Section 16 of the Environment Protection Act and a person who was looking to day to day affairs of the company can be made accused and that too there should be averment that person was looking to day to day affairs of the company all these allegations are lacking in the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. V. Harmeet Singh Pental and Another: reported (2010) 3 SCC 330 has held that it is mandatory for the complainant to make averments in the complaint petition that the accused is directly in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The said ingredient is missing in the case in hand even the firm is not made accused in the FIR.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Burmu P.S. Case No.20 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is hereby quashed.

This petition is allowed and disposed of.