Back
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Arvind Singh Chandel, J.—Since in both the writ petitions, common issues are involved, hence these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.
2. Cr.W.J.C. No 1613 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of Daudnagar PS Case No 047 of 2024 dated 08.02.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 420 of the IPC and Rule 56 of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred as the 2019 Rules) and Cr.W.J.C. No 1597 of 2024 has been filed seeking quashing of Dehri Town PS Case No 115 of 2024 dated 13.02.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 420 of the IPC.
3. In both the petitions, the petitioner is common which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Dehri Town PS Case No 115 of 2024 is based upon the written complaint made by Anil Kumar, Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Rohtas and Daudnagar PS Case No 047 of 2024 is based upon the written complaint submitted by the informant Vikas Kumar, Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Aurangabad.
Facts of the case.
4. The petitioner, in both the petitions, i.e., Aditya Mul
FIRs against a mineral concessionaire were quashed due to lack of verification and failure to establish cognizable offences, emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures in prosecution.
Penalties on stockyard dealers for alleged shortages of sand must be explicitly provided for in law; arbitrary imposition of penalties without statutory backing is impermissible.
Point of law: The Licensee who contravenes the provisions of these rules deals with storing, stocking and transportation of minerals, either in raw form and / or subjected the mineral/s to beneficia....
Penalty cannot be imposed on stockyard dealers for alleged shortages of sand without statutory provisions supporting such action.
No offence was established against the petitioner under the cited laws as allegations were insufficient, leading to quashing of the F.I.R. and proceedings.
The court emphasized the distinct nature of offences under the MMDR Act and the IPC, highlighting the interpretation of Section 22 of the MMDR Act and the ingredients constituting the offence of thef....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
