The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection provided under Section 27 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for actions taken in good faith while discharging official duty.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 4.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 70 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

3. The O.P. No. 4 has filed C.C. Case No. 411/2021 alleging therein that the complainant is a reputed businessmen and owner of Tractors bearing Registration (i) JH22A-4673 and its trolley No. JH22A-9918 and (ii) JH 22A-9756 and its Trolley No. JH22A-4630 and is also a government registered contractor.

It is further alleged that on or before 03.03.2021 the complainant was peacefully engaged in transportation of permitted goods for agriculture purpose.

It is further alleged that on 03.03.2021 at about 8.00 A.M. the complainant was informed by his driver that his vehicle loaded with filling soil was taken to Seraikella Police Station forcibly and when the complainant reached Seraikella Police Station, he was informed by the Officer-in-Charge that the vehicle has been kept under the seizure and custody of District Mining Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

It is further alleged that the complainant had also tried to meet the District Mining Officer but the District Mining Officer denied to meet him and conveyed the message to get the penalty submitted as he has to achieve his target for the financial year, 2020-21.

It is further alleged that on 05.03.2021 the complainant again went to the office of the District Mining Officer and tried to convince him that the material loaded in the vehicle is under permitted activity but the District Mining Officer used filthy language and told the complainant that his vehicles were being used in illegal mining and transporting.

It is further alleged that the District Mining Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon each vehicle and the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- for release of the vehicles, however, release order was issued for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No. JH22A-4673, Trolley No. JH22A-9918.

It is further alleged that after release of the first vehicle, the complainant requested to generate another release order for the other vehicle upon which the District Mining Officer denied and asked for a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- for releasing the vehicle. The amount was beyond the limit of the complainant so he showed his inability to pay the same.

It is further alleged that on 25.03.2021, the complainant again visited the office and requested the petitioner to release the other vehicle, however, the petitioner became aggressive and slapped him and even threatened him to implicate in a false case.

It is further alleged that no offence has been committed by the complainant and his vehicles were carrying permitted goods but vehicle with Registration No. JH22A-9756 and its Trolley JH22A-4630 has been detained by the petitioner without any reason.

4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that while discharging his official duty the petitioner seized two tractors along with vehicle of the O.P. No. 4 in which illegal mining was being done by the O.P. No. 4. He further submits that Sub Rule 5 of Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2004 prescribes that for the first offence offence penalty of Rs. 10,000/- shall be imposed, for the second offence penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and for the third offence penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be imposed. He further submits that so far as first tractor in question is concerned on the deposition of Rs. 10,000/- on misconception that tractor was directed to be released and lateron the office of the petitioner found that the said tractor which was released, was earlier involved in illegal transportati