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.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.18 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppathur, and to quash the same, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, where the final report has been laid for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (theft) and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, “MMDR Act”). The petitioners also seek a consequential interim relief for dispensing with personal appearance in P.R.C.No.18 of 2025 pending disposal of the main petition.

Case of the Prosecution:

2. The prosecution case, in substance, is that on 15.02.2025 at about 20:00 hours, while the de-facto complainant and another official were on patrol near Maangudi, they allegedly found the petitioners engaged in illegal extraction/removal of sand without lawful permit. It is alleged that the sand was being removed from the land stated to be owned by Abbas (father of the 2^nd petitioner) by using an earth mover/JCB bearing Registration No. TN 79 F 7689 (stated to be owned by the 2^nd petitioner) and transported using (i) lorry bearing Registration No. TN 55 X 4746 (stated to be owned by the 2^nd petitioner), (ii) lorry bearing Registration No. TN 63 P 4217 (stated to be owned by the 4^th petitioner), and (iii) TATA SFC bearing Registration No. TN 76 L 5792 (stated to be owned by the 2^nd petitioner).

3. The final report proceeds on the premise that (i) the 1^st and the 4^th petitioners operated the heavy vehicles with about 2½ units of sand each, (ii) the 2^nd petitioner operated the small commercial vehicle with about 1 unit of sand, and (iii) the 3^rd petitioner operated the earth mover for removal of sand without permission. The loss to Government is quantified at Rs.14,477/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Seven only). On these allegations, the police have laid a final report for theft (now reflected as Section 303(2) BNS, 2023) and for contravention punishable under Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act.

Grounds for Quash:

4. The petitioners deny the allegations and contend that the case is an abuse of process. The principal grounds urged are:

(i) Bar of cognizance under the MMDR Act: By virtue of the statutory scheme, cognizance for offences under the MMDR Act can be taken only on a complaint by an authorised officer, and not on a police final report. Therefore, the inclusion of Section 21(4) MMDR Act in the final report and cognizance thereon are contended to be illegal.

(ii) No theft where the land is patta land and removal is for agricultural purpose: The 2^nd petitioner asserts that the subject land stands in his name, that he is an agriculturist, and that the removal was only incidental to agricultural development activities, including for horticulture/drip irrigation benefits. It is submitted that “theft” requires dishonest taking of property out of the possession of another without consent; where the activity is within one’s patta land and for bona fide agricultural use, theft is not made out.

(iii) Vagueness / absence of essential ingredients: The charge sheet is attacked as vague, lacking material particulars regarding any past sale, commercial intent, or dishonest intention. The petitioners also relied upon Rule 17 of the relevant Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Rules (as cited at the Bar), to contend that minor minerals on a small scale may be quarried free of charge for one’s own bona fide domestic/agricultural purposes, subject to