IMPORTANT POINT
Violation of mining lease terms and conditions can lead to the establishment of prima facie materials for criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. By filing this revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner/accused sought for quashing of proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1030 of 2019 corresponding to Md. Bazar Police Station Case No. 216 of 2019 dated 30.07.2019 under Sections 379/411/413/414/120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of Mines & Minerals Act, 1957 read with Section 21 of West Bengal Mines & Minerals Act, 2002 & Section 3 of Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act pending before the Learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum.

2. The brief facts of the instant case are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant case as under:

(a) The petitioner was a lessee under the West Bengal Minor Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016 after being successful bidder for grant of mining lease vide memo no. M&M/4441/E-Auction/DL&LRO/2016 dated 27.10.2016 floated by the concerned District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Birbhum, Suri and, thereafter, deposited the requisite bid amount as a successful bidder. After satisfaction of payment of full and final bid amount, the Governor of West Bengal executed a mining lease for minor minerals i.e. sand on 3rd August, 2017 for a period of five years and the area of the lease situated at mouza Baidyapur, J.L. No. 023 under Sainthia P.S. District - Birbhum on plot no. 074(P), 075(P) covering an area 9.31 acres on the riverbed of Mayurakshi being depicted as SAND BLOCK No. Bir/Sainthia/Baidyapur/033/2016 in the NIT/NIA No. Bir/10-65/2016 uploaded vide memo no. M&M/4441/E-Auction/DL& LRO(B)/2016 dated 27.10.2016 of the office of the ADM and DL& LRO, Birbhum within Registration district of Birbhum bearing code Nos. 03 containing an area of 9.31 acres.

(b) It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner time to time deposited all sort of requisites and, thereafter, lifted the sand from the riverbed and kept it in the stockyard, approved by the competent authority unless and until sale challans are issued by the authority, the petitioner was/is not entitled to sell the same and there was a bar for lifting the sand during mansoon season in view of the relevant Government circular. In spite of the fulfilment of all conditions by the petitioner, the BL&LRO, Suri lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is a holder of long term lease but the stock, as kept in the stockyard, has been found excess though the allegations are completely false and fabricated. Actually, the petitioner is entitled to lifting the sand for five years as per the deed of mining lease for minor minerals after having fulfilment of all criteria. So, question of theft by the petitioner does not arise at all. As such, continuation of First Information Report and proceeding thereafter is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to ensure the end of justice, this Court can exercise inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the said false complaint.

3. Hence, the criminal revisional application has come up before this Bench for disposal.

4. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner on call and even on earlier occasions, no one represented the petitioner. No accommodation was sought. This Court has given several opportunities to the petitioner. Despite of the said facts, no one represented the petitioner.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State produced the case diary and memo of evidence and submitted that the petitioner/accused person was a lessee and he was given permission to extract the sand as per the mining lease for minor minerals with certain terms and conditions. There was a limitation for extracting the sand from the riverbed of Mayurakshi. There was also restriction about the maximum height of the stock from the ground. It should not be more than 4 ft. or the boundary wall whichever is less. A clearance of 2 ft. should b