SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5097

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Selvaraj @ Veppadai Selvaraj – Petitioner 
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Chindhamanipatti Police Station, Karur Dist. – Respondent 
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.4333, 4346, 4349 of 2024 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.3419, 3420, 3426, 3427, 3433, 3434 of 2024
Decided On : 03-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian.
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The Inspector must file separate complaints for mines and minerals violations, while maintaining IPC charges can proceed under existing investigations.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act - Section 21(1) - Indian Penal Code - Section 379 - The charge sheets against the petitioner for illegal quarrying were quashed regarding the MMDR Act due to improper filing by the Inspector, and he was directed to file a private complaint; however, the charges under IPC remain. (Paras 6 to 8)

(B) Legal Provisions - The law requires that authorized officers must file private complaints for MMDR Act violations, while charges can be pursued under IPC without such a procedure. (Paras 2 to 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced allegations of illegal quarrying of limestone, leading to criminal complaints registered by police and final reports filed. (Paras 1, 5)

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the Inspector, as an authorized officer, could file a private complaint for MMDR violations separately from the ongoing IPC investigation. (Paras 6 to 9)

Issues: Whether the Inspector of Police was authorized to file charges under the MMDR Act without appropriate complaints as required. (Paras 1 to 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the Inspector to file separate complaints under the MMDR Act, reinforcing the procedure for prosecuting environmental violations and the role of authorized officers. (Paras 6 to 8)

Result: Charge sheets for the MMDR Act quashed; the Magistrate shall proceed with IPC offences.

Judgement Key Points

No, under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, which penalizes gaming or setting birds and animals to fight in public streets, there is no provision allowing a police officer to file a private complaint as an alternative to registering an FIR. The offenses are cognizable, as police are empowered to apprehend without warrant and seize items, enabling them to initiate an FIR, conduct an investigation, and submit a police report or charge sheet under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Private complaints are generally reserved for non-cognizable offenses or where a statute explicitly requires them, which is not the case here (!) (!) (!) (!) . If a private individual wishes to complain about such an offense, they may file a complaint directly with a magistrate, but this does not apply to police officers acting in their official capacity (!) (!) .


ORDER :

B. PUGALENDHI, J.

The petitioner is an accused in Crime Nos.318 of 2021, 52 of 2022 & 53 of 2022 on the file of the Chindhamanipatti Police Station, Karur District, registered for the offence u/s.379 IPC & 21(1) of the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act [hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act']. All these three cases have been registered at the instance of the respective second respondents / official from the Department of Geology and Mining on 13.11.2021 and 27.03.2022 respectively. The respondent Police has completed the investigation and also filed the final report, which are now taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kulithalai, in CC.Nos. 171, 217, 219 of 2023, respectively. The petitioner has filed these criminal original petitions to quash the charge sheet pending against him.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the final reports have been filed as against the petitioner for the offence u/s.379 IPC and 21(1) of the MMDR Act. With regard to the offence under the MMDR Act, the law is settled in Sengol & Others v. Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station & Others [ 2012 (2) CTC 369 ] that the complaint has to be filed only by the authorised officer contemplated u/s.22 of the MMDR Act by way of a private complaint. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Another [1992 SCC (Crl.) 462].

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Government has authorised the Inspectors of Police and various other officials, as the authorised officer u/s.22 of the MMDR Act. Therefore, the Inspector of Police / first respondent is authorised to initiate the proceedings.

4. This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

5. The prosecution case is that the petitioner has indulged in illegal quarrying and transportation of lime stone. The respective second respondent / official from the Directorate of Geology and Mining has found the same and also informed the first respondent Police. Accordingly, the first respondent Police registered the cases for the offence u/s.379 IPC and Section 22 (1) of the MMDR Act. After investigation, the first respondent Police has also filed the final reports for the offence u/s.379 IPC and (1) of the MMDR Act.

6. In Re Sengol's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has settled the law, with regard to filing of final report in a case registered under two enactments, as under:-

“46. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer the questions referred to us as follows:

(i) Since, the offences under the Penal Code, 1860 involved in the cases before us and an offence under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are not the same offences in terms of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act will not exclude the provisions of IPC. Therefore, in respect of sand theft, it will be lawful for the police to register a case as provided in Section 154, Cr.P.C., under Section 379 and other relevant provisions of IPC, investigate the same as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to lay a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upon which it will be well within the competence of the jurisdictional Magistrate to take cognizance. Therefore, such an FIR, where case has been registered only under the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860, shall not be liable to be quashed.

(ii) If an act of the Accused constitutes offences under Penal Code, 1860 as well as the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the registration of a case both under the provisions of Penal Code, 1860 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is not illegal and the police may proceed with the investigation. However, the police shall file a Police Report only

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top