Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI
Selvaraj @ Veppadai Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, Chindhamanipatti Police Station, Karur Dist. – Respondent
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 on
The Inspector must file separate complaints for mines and minerals violations, while maintaining IPC charges can proceed under existing investigations.
Complaints under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act must be filed by authorized officers, while dual prosecution under IPC and the MMDR Act is permissible when following proper p....
Police lack authority to investigate under the Mines and Minerals Act without a complaint from an authorized person, reaffirming the necessity of compliance with statutory provisions.
Bar under sub-section (2) of Section 23-A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under IPC, such as, Section 379 and 414 IPC, which shall proceed further in accordance with law.
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
