The judgment established the principle that in cases of mining accidents, the applicability of the Mines Act, 1952, and the Indian Penal Code should be carefully considered, and distinct offences under each law should be recognized.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad in connection with S.T. Case No.129/2016 arising out of Chirkunda (Panchet) P.S. Case No.270/2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No.4644/2013, pending in the court of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad.

3. The FIR has been instituted on the basis of self statement of S.I. Umesh Kumar Thakur, Incharge Panchet O.P. (Chirkunda P.S.) on 12.11.2013 at 17:00 hours alleging therein that on 11.11.2013 at about 12:30 hours the informant received an information on his mobile from one employee of CISF that in Sushil Incline, Basantimata Colliery, C.V. Area of M/s. B.C.C.L., a coal roof has fallen underneath the coal mine, in which some persons have become injured and some have died. On this information, the informant went to Sushil Incline and came to learn that due to roof fall some persons have sustained injury who had given first aid. The informant also inspected the place of occurrence and found two persons dead and came to learn that the said Sunshi Incline was closed in the year 2008, but it was again opened on 16.07.2013 by the order of the D.G.M.S. and while SDL machines was being extracting without any support there was an accident of roof fall, labourers present over there told that wooden support was less and about the same the information was given to the Management but no support was extended, as such, accident had taken place and the informant also came to learn that four persons died and dead bodies were extracted with the help of rescue team. It was further alleged that due to the lapses on the part of the official of the Management etc. the direction of the security was not complied, as such, accident had taken place, in which four persons have lost their lives and two persons have become injured. The accident has taken place on 11.11.2013 at 11:15 hours. On the basis of the said information, the present case was registered under Sections 288, 337, 338, 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others.

4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the prayer made by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected. He further submits that entire allegation is with regard to mines operation and occurrence took place as coal roof has fallen on four persons and they have died. He also submits that the nature of allegation is covered under the Mines Act, 1952. The complaint case has been registered under Section 72A, 72(1)(a) and 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 in which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 72A, 72(1)(a) and 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 in C.M.A. Case No.36 of 2014, corresponding to T.R. No.1626 of 2014. The said C.M.A. Case was filed on 12.02.2014 and the same is still pending. He further submits that once the special law is there, the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Mithilesh Kumar Singh & others v. The State of Jharkhand & another decided on 04.08.2015 in Cr.M.P. No.314 of 2002 and in Arbind Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand & another decided on 04.08.2015 in Cr.M.P. No.774 of 2002. He further submits that identical issue was considered by this Court in 2005 (3) Eastern Criminal Case Jhr 530 and 2005 (2) Eastern Criminal Cases Jhr 407 .

5. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that occurrence took place on 11.11.2013 and on 12.11.2013 the FIR has been registered. He further submits that charge under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been directed to be framed against the petitioner and others