JUDGMENT :

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Pandwa P.S. Case No.36 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021 for the offences punishable under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

2. On the limited statement of the informant, the said FIR was registered stating therein that:

The case of the informant in nutshell is that one Birmani Saw has given a statement before Pandwa Police at Pandwa Police Station stating, inter alia, that he is residing nearby at Kathuatia Open Cast Coal Mines of Hindalco Industries Limited, where there is open mine in which water logging has been found. It is further alleged that inspite of several request, the said water logging has not been cleared by the Management of Hindalco Industries Limited. On 30.04.2021, at about 08:30 a.m, his son Aman Kumar Saw, aged about 16 years went for natural call and due to slippery, he fell down in the water logging of mine and later on died.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is the mines agent of Kathuatia Open Cast Coal Mines of Hindalco Industries Limited. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be held liable to vicarious liability in the F.I.R. He further submits that Hindalco Industries Limited (Kathautia Open Cast Mines) is situated in the village Kathautia and presently there are four pits i.e. (a), (b), (c) and (d). Amongst these four pits, Pit (c) is not operational which is situated near Village Bagwanwa. He submits that since the mines is Open Cast Mine, the local people residing nearby village are indulged in illegal mining of coal by the local people. He further submits that M/s Hindalco Industries Limited had erected the fencing wire, caution board and CCTV camera which has been thrown out for the purpose of illegal mining of coal by local people. He submits that in view of the allegations made in the F.I.R., no case under section 304 IPC is made out so far the petitioner is concerned. He further submits that if any action is required that is under the Mines Act as there is special provision for penalty and sentence. He refers to section 5 of the Cr.P.C and submits that this section is crystal clear on the point of any special procedure prescribed by any such law. He further submits that it is well settled that when there is a Special Act, the provisions of the I.P.C will not be applicable. He relied in the case of “Hare Kant Jha v. The State of Jharkhand and Another”, 2014 SCC Online Jhar 1560 and refers to paragraph no.8 of the said judgment which is as under:

“8. Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the FIR, I find that there is allegation in the FIR that the accident had taken place in the mines as unauthorized persons were committing theft of coal in the mines. Accordingly even if allegations in the FIR are accepted in entirety, the offence, if any, made out against the petitioner relates to contravention of the provisions of the Mines Act, specially Sections 23, 70, 72, 72-C of the Mines Act, which relate to the accident in the mines, causing loss of life. Section 79 of the Mines Act clearly lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, unless complaint thereof is made by the competent authority within the prescribed period. Section 75 of the Act clearly lays down the persons, who are authorized to make the complaint for the offence under the Act.”

4. He further relied in the case of “Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi)”, (2017) 2 SCC 18 and refers to paragraph nos.31, 32 and 37 of the said judgment, which are as under:

“31. Having noted the provisions, it has to be recapitulated that Section 67 clearly stipulates punishment for publishing, transmitting obscene materials in electronic form. The said provision read with Sections 67-A and 6