Santhosh Kannan, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11802 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8123 of 2017 Santhosh Kannan
...Petitioner
-Vs1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Soorankudi Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.67 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant 2.Bala Murugan Village Administrative Officer, Vilathikulam Village, Soorankudi Village (in charge), Thoothukudi District. ... 2nd Respondent / De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the F.I.R. in Crime No.67 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Gandhi For Respondents :Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl. side).
***
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.67 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2.The petitioner states that the second respondent / Village Administrative Officer, Vilathikulam and Soorankudi village, has given a complaint as against the petitioner and three others alleging that on 22.08.2017, he received a secret information that some people were transporting sand illegally. It was further stated in the said complaint that the petitioner, who is the driver and others who are the owners of the lorries have failed to produce the documents, when they were intercepted and found transporting river sand illegally. On the basis of the complaint received from the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Cr.No.67 of 2017 for the offences punishable
under Section 379 IPC and under Section 21(1) of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 against the four persons. 3.The petitioner, who is the driver of the lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-22-AR-3425, submitted that the lorry which was intercepted by the respondent is being used for transporting the river sand from the start yard to customer, for several months and that the vehicle was never involved in any illegal quarry. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has valid documents with insurance, etc., and that the complaint was given only because the petitioner had not produced any documents, when it was demanded at the time of intercepting the vehicle. 4.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner placed before this Court a receipt issued by Public Works Department, for two units of river sand to show that he has paid the cost for the sand. It was further submitted that the petitioner's booking was approved on 21.08.2017 and that the permit was also issued by the Public Works Department, to transport the river sand from 21.08.2017 to 22.08.2017. It was only on 22.08.2017, the petitioner had transported the river sand. 5.Since the dispute is only about the production of relevant documents to show that whether the petitioner had valid licence or not, to carry the river sand at the time of interception by the revenue officials, this Court earlier, requested the learned Government Advocate, to verify whether the documents were produced by the petitioner or not.
The petitioner was also directed to appear before the first respondent and produce all the documents on or before 18.09.2017. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that out of the four vehicles involved in the crime, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and produced all the documents in original showing that he had valid permit / licence to transport the river sand. Since, the petitioner is the driver of the lorry, had valid licence / permit to transport the river sand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the complaint against the petitioner alone can be quashed. Other persons / accused involved in the crime, have not submitted any documents to show that they were not illegally transporting the river sand. 6.
Hence, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Cr.No.67 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent as against the petitioner alone, is quashed. It is open to the first respondent to proceed further as against the others, in the manner known to law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar
To 1.The Inspector of Police, Soorankudi Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Village Administrative Officer, Soorankudi Village, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to M/S.R.GANDHI, Advocate SR.No.79806 cmr MAS/SV-MMS/SAR1:27.09.2017:3P-5C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11802 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8123 of 2017 19.09.2017