Sasipraba v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 13/06/2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.12855 of 2022 Sasipraba : Petitioner/A1 Vs.

1.The State:

The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Station, Theni District.

(In Crime No.1146 of 2021) : R1/Complainant 2.Murugan : R2/De-facto Complainant Prayer:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.1146 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent Police Station and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar for Mrs.S.Prabha For 1st Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No.1146 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent.

2.The facts in brief:- The de-facto complainant is the Headquarter Deputy Tashildar, lodged a complaint stating that against the licence of quarry granted to one Sasipraba, the accused engaged in lifting sand from the un-licensed area. It was also informed that some manipulation and corrections have been made in the trip sheet. The alleged Tipper Lorries have been seized and kept in the custody of the Revenue Inspector. Seeking action against those, who lifted the sand from the un-licensed area, he lodged a complaint. Upon which, a case in Crime No.1146 of 2021 was registered for the offence under section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the police have no right to register the FIR for the offence mentioned by the de-facto complainant.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Without going into the legality of the registration of the FIR under section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, we will concentrate on the other issue, that has been raised by the petitioner.

6.The petitioner already leased out the property to conduct the quarry operation to one Karthick and quarry licence was also granted by the de-facto complainant with certain conditions, the survey number in which the quarrying operation is permitted is also mentioned. 7.Now the case of the prosecution is that some illegal sand mining activity was undertaken by the coaccused in the property, which was not permitted for quarry. It is further submitted that the licensee namely

Karthick admitted the guilt, the compounded the offence as per the order of the District Collector. This is also confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam, by his letter, dated 06/06/2022. Over the above said illegal sand mining activity, he was imposed with fine of Rs.6,25,392/- and that was also paid by the above said Karthick. So, this document shows that only Karthick is involved in illegal sand mining activity, for which the owner of the property namely the petitioner herein cannot be held responsible. So on that sole ground, this petition is liable to be allowed. 8.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.1146 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent is hereby quashed as against the petitioner.

13/06/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er G.ILANGOVAN, J

er To, 1.The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Station, Theni District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.OP(MD)No.12855 of 2022 13.06.2023