The police cannot register FIRs under the MMDR Act without a prior complaint to the Magistrate, and allegations of cheating must demonstrate fraudulent intent, which was absent in this case.

ORDER :

V.Sujatha, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the FIR in Crime No.506 of 2020 dated 29.09.2020, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short “MMDR Act”).

2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint stating that this is a case of cheating and illegal transportation of sand. On 29.09.2020, acting on credible information, the 2^nd respondent along with his staff, went to the spot at Kallivanlpalem centre, near Boyapalem junction, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam, and found that accused No.1 was illegally transporting 25 Tons of sand, on a lorry bearing Reg.No.AP31TH5888 under the direction of his owner i.e., accused No.2. Upon verifying the sand bill, transit No.TNAP31TH5888209280753598549, and other connected documents, the 2^nd respondent found that the lorry was supposed to be headed to Pool Bag Colony, Vizianagaram District. However, the vehicle was found heading towards Boyapalem of Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without any permission from necessary department, and in violation of the Sand Transporting Rules and MMDR Act. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent seized the lorry bearing No. AP31TH5888 along with 25 tons of sand and handed it over to the Anandapuram Police for further action. Hence, the present FIR was filed.

3. The present petition is filed to quash the FIR on the foremost ground that the FIR itself is not maintainable under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. For the registration of any case under MMDR Act, particularly for penalties under Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, a complaint must be filed before the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. only. However, in this case, the FIR was registered basing on a police report, which is not maintainable under law. Even though there were bills and documents relating to the sand, which was intended to be transported to Pool bag, Vizianagaram, a crime under Section 420 of the I.P.C. was registered solely on the basis that the vehicle was proceeding to Anandapuram Visakhapatnam. Prima facie, such an allegation under Section 420 does not appear to be applicable. Hence, prays to allow the petition.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners is sufficient to conclude that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act and requested to dismiss the petition.

5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:

“Whether the FIR against the petitioners in Crime No.506 of 2020 dated 29.09.2020 Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injus