Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Sunil Khirwal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr. M.P. No. 1732 of 2007
Decided On : 6/2/2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the State :Mr. V.S. Sahay, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 2 :Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
The central legal principle established in the judgment is that disputes primarily arising from contractual agreements should be resolved through civil remedies, and criminal proceedings may not be appropriate in such cases.
Headnote:
Iron Ore Mines - Dispute over Mining Rights - Indian Penal Code 406, 420, 447, 379/34
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose over the operation of Iron Ore Mines between the petitioners and the informants. The informants alleged that the petitioners continued to run the Mines illegally after the expiry of their authority, while the petitioners claimed to have the right to operate the Mines based on agreements and power of attorney.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute primarily revolved around the authorization to operate the Mines and the alleged breach of terms and conditions of the agreements. It concluded that the matter was essentially a civil dispute and quashed the criminal proceeding against the petitioners.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioners had the authority to operate the Iron Ore Mines and whether their actions constituted a criminal offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the dispute was contractual in nature and that the remedy sought by the petitioners through a civil suit for specific performance of the contract was appropriate. It held that no criminal case could be allowed to continue for the actions of the petitioners, which were part of a civil dispute.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners.
Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Nawamundi P.S. Case No. 59 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 624 of 2007, in which an FIR has been instituted for the offence under sections 406, 420, 447, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code
3. The prosecution story as would appear from the FIR instituted by the opposite party no. 2 herein is that the informant has an Iron Ore Mines, which had been given for some time to the petitioners as its agents to run the Mines and the said agreement was valid up to 31.8.2007. It has been alleged that from 1.9.2007, the accused persons ceased to be the agents of the informant and that all authorities bestowed upon the accused persons were withdrawn, which fact had also been communicated to the District Mining Officer. It has further been alleged that in spite of having no right over the Iron Ore Mines, the accused persons are continuing to run the Mines, which is illegal.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Nawamundi P.S. Case No. 59 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 624 of 2007 was instituted.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the Directors of M/s B.N. Khirwal Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. It has further been submitted that Mitra Ghosh and the informant Samir Kumar Ghosh are the lessees in succession of Iron Ore Mines in question. It has also been submitted that the informants are the mining lessees in respect of Iron Ore Mines over an area of 20.07 Hectares in Nawamundi protected forest block no. 40, Revenue Thana, Thana No. 736 in the district of Singhbhum West, which is in two blocks namely Block No. A and Block No. B. The original lessee with respect to the Mines was Shri Manindra Nath Ghosh and after his death on 20.04.1978, his two sons namely Salil Kumar Ghosh and Samir Kumar Ghosh (informant) became the lessees. It has been submitted that before expiry of the lease, which was granted by an indenture of lease dated 8.1.1963 executed on behalf of the State of Bihar, the lessees had applied for renewal of the lease and since no order was passed, the lease was deemed to have been automatically extended till final order was passed on the renewal application. Since the successors to the lease were not in a position to run the Mines, as such the same was transferred in favour of the petitioners' company by virtue of an agreement dated 26.9.1998 and for which an application was also made by the lessees on 24.02.1999 before the Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Bihar. It has further been submitted that in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.8.1999, the petitioners were authorized to operate, develop the Mines and carry out mining activity at its own expenses and one Sumit Kumar Khirwal (petitioner no. 2), who was one of the Directors of the petitioners’ company, was authorized to operate the Mines in terms of the power of attorney executed by the lessees dated 20.12.1994. Subsequently, as has been stated, after completion of two years, another power of attorney in favour of petitioner no. 2 was executed on 31.8.2003 and on completion of the same, another power of attorney was executed on 1.9.2005, which was valid up to 31.8.2007 and the one which was executed by Smt. Mitra Ghosh for her 50% share in the lease was valid up to 3.11.2008 and therefore it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had the right to carry on mining activities by virtue of power of attorney granted to them. It has also been submitted that on coming to know that the informants are contemplating to authorize some third party to operate the said Mines, a Title Suit was filed by the petitioners’ company being Title Suit No. 15/2007 a
