Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J
Chitranjan Prasad Kushwaha, S/o Vijay Shankar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent- State in spite of repeated calls.
3. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding of Rajrappa P.S. Case No.171 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2), 317 (2), 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 , Section 04/21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, and Rule 09/13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage)Rules, 2017 which is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the informant- the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh found two Hywa vehicles being loaded with sand in excess of the amount of sand mentioned in the relevant challan. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of M/s. Aditya Enterprises from which the co-accused purchased sand, which was transported with some additional sand, in excess of the quantity of sand ment
No offence was established against the petitioner under the cited laws as allegations were insufficient, leading to quashing of the F.I.R. and proceedings.
Cognizance of mining offences requires a written complaint from an authorized person; without it, proceedings are unsustainable.
FIRs against a mineral concessionaire were quashed due to lack of verification and failure to establish cognizable offences, emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures in prosecution.
The court emphasized the distinct nature of offences under the MMDR Act and the IPC, highlighting the interpretation of Section 22 of the MMDR Act and the ingredients constituting the offence of thef....
Cognizance for offenses under the MMDR Act requires an authorized officer's complaint, not a police report; theft allegations fail when removal is from one's own land for agricultural purposes.
Penalty cannot be imposed on stockyard dealers for alleged shortages of sand without statutory provisions supporting such action.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
