The FIR for theft must disclose essential elements like ownership and value; absence of these foundational facts constitutes an abuse of process.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.580 of 2025, registered by the first respondent Police for the offence under Section 303 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (theft), in connection with alleged transportation of M-sand without producing a permit.

2. The petitioner contends that the FIR is an abuse of process, that the essential ingredients of “theft” are absent, and that in any event the manner of registration/investigation is vitiated because the value of the alleged stolen property is not stated, though the classification of the offence under the BNS depends upon value.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as could be gathered from the impugned FIR, is that the police intercepted a vehicle allegedly carrying about four units of M-sand. Upon being required to produce the relevant transport permit / transit pass / documents, the driver allegedly failed to produce the same and is stated to have run away. On that premise, the first respondent Police registered the case for theft under Section 303 (2) of the BNS , 2023.

4. The FIR, as placed before this Court, does not indicate (i) from whose possession the M-sand was allegedly removed, (ii) from which location/quarry it was allegedly stolen, (iii) whether any quarry owner / lawful possessor has complained of theft, and (iv) the value of the property, though the BNS schedule/classification makes value determinative for cognizability in certain situations.

5. Grounds urged for quash:

The petitioner urges, in substance, the following grounds:

(i) The FIR is ex facie illegal, lacking jurisdictional facts for theft.

(ii) The seized material is stated to be M-sand, typically produced by private quarries and in the absence of any complaint by the owner/lawful possessor, and in the absence of a narration as to dishonest removal from possession, the offence of theft is not made out.

(iii) The FIR does not mention the value of the alleged stolen property, when the statutory classification makes value relevant, the omission is fatal, particularly if the offence is to be treated as non- cognizable, in which event investigation cannot proceed without the order of the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

(iv) Even assuming any infraction, the proper statutory route would fall within the regulatory regime under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the relevant Rules, the invocation of “theft” is stated to be a colourable exercise.

Submissions:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police action is founded merely on non-production of permit and the alleged conduct of the driver. According to the learned counsel, mere absence of permit cannot be equated to theft, unless the FIR discloses: (a) dishonest taking; (b) of movable property; (c) out of someone’s possession; (d) without consent; and (e) moving the property in order to such taking. It was further argued that under the BNS framework, in cases where the value is below Rs.5,000/-, the classification impacts cognizability, therefore, the police are bound to mention value in the FIR. Since the value is not stated, the investigation is vitiated, especially if no prior permission of the Magistrate has been obtained for investigating a non-cognizable offence.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an order passed by this Court in an “identical” matter in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.16093 of 2025 wherein the FIR was quashed on two grounds: (i) absence of theft ingredients because the FIR was silent as to the source/possession from whi