1. This petition is preferred U/s.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying that Annexure-II charge in Crime No.874/09 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamcotta for offence punishable U/S.188 IPC and U/Ss.20 and 21 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001, may be quashed by invoking inherent jurisdiction. The allegation is that on 4.12.2009 at 8.45 a.m. the accused was found transporting river sand in a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 2W 106 east of Karalimukku junction in west Kallada Village by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta. Accused were arrested and registered Annexure-1 FIR. The ground alleged by the petitioner for questioning Annexure-II charge sheet is noncompliance of the necessary requirements in the Kerala Protection of river Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001, therefore, continuance of the trial is a mere abuse of process of Court.

2. The inherent powers of the High Court contemplated u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to make such orders necessary to “give effect to any order” under this code or to prevent “abuse of the process” of any court or to secure “the ends of justice”. This power cannot be invoked naturally in a matter where it is covered by a specific provision of the code. Therefore it means that if the matter in question is not covered by any provision of the code, it comes into operation, for the three purposes mentioned above. It is true that it cannot be used against doubtful cases of injustice. Apex Court in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purushotham Mondker (AIR 1958 SC 376) held that the inherent power contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the section itself.

3. The averment is that the Sub Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta registered a case U/S.25 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act against the petitioner in the year 2009. It is true that Kerala River Bank Protection and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 was amended in 2013 and before amendment, Section 25 of the Act reads as follows:

“25. Cognizance of offences.- No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Government or the District Collector or a Geologist of the Department of Mining and Geology.”

The provision of the State enactment u/s.25 provides for taking cognizance only upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Government or the District Collector or a Geologist of the Department of Mining and Geology. When an officer referred to under the above Section is satisfied that an offence under this Act has been committed, he shall file a complaint before the Magistrate Court having jurisdiction. After amendment of the Act, Section 25 of the Act reads as follows: (Substituted by Act 15 of 2013 (w.e.f.25/11/2012).

“25. Cognizance of offences.-

(1) The Court having jurisdiction may, upon a written complaint by an officer referred to in Section 23 or of a Geologist of the Mining and Geology Department or upon a police report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), constituting an offence under this Act, take cognizance of such offence.

(2) Where an officer referred to under sub-section (1) is satisfied that an offence under this Act has been committed, he shall, as soon as may be, file a complaint relating to that, before the Magistrate Court having jurisdiction.”

4. The term “complaint” has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as follows: “any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, the some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an of