Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Raj Beer Singh, JJ.
Ikram Ahmad and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19922 of 2019
Decided On : 26-07-2019
For the Appellant : Siddhartha Srivastava and Mohd. Farooq
The power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and the court should be circumspect, conscious, and careful in considering such petitions.
Headnote:
Mines and Minerals - Quashing of FIR - Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957, Rules 3, 7 and 57 of U.P. Miner Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, and Rules 3, 7 and 57 of U.P. Miner Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. It highlighted the legal position on quashing of criminal proceedings and cited guidelines from State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC) and other relevant case laws. The court emphasized that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It also referred to the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others 2009 (1) SCC 516 and Kamlesh Kumari and others v. State of U.P. and others 2015 (90) ACC 293 (SC) to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition to quash the FIR registered against them under section 379 IPC and section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 and Rules 3, 7 and 57 of U.P. Miner Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. They argued that the FIR was against the provisions of law and that they were not found at the spot nor involved in any illegal mining.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR made out a prima facie cognizable offence against the petitioners and that the case did not fall within the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify quashing of the FIR. Therefore, the court held that the impugned FIR was not liable to be quashed.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the legality of the FIR under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, and Rules 3, 7 and 57 of U.P. Miner Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, and the applicability of guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal position on quashing of criminal proceedings, the prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ingredients constituting the offence, and the exercise of power to quash FIR or proceedings sparingly and with circumspection.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned FIR was not liable to be quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, Raj Beer Singh, JJ.
1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prabhash Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned RI.R. dated 10.7.2019, which has been registered as FIR No. 0221/2019, under section 379 IPC and section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 and Rules 3, 7 and 57 of U.P. Miner Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, P.S. Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi.
3. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned first information report lodged by the respondent No. 4 is against the provisions of law as section 22 of 1957 Act, provides that cognizance in such matters can only be taken on the complaint made by a person authorized by the competent authority and likewise Rule 74 of U.P. Miner Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 also provides similar embargo on the point of cognizance. It has been submitted that the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, being special provision, would prevail over general law. It has been next argued that the petitioners were not found at the spot nor they have indulged in any illegal mining and thus, no offence is made out against them. Learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2009) 7 SCC 526.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed. He has cited the case of Rishipal v. State of U.P., Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 12052 of 2010 and others and the case of State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay AIR 2014 SCW 5487.
5. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the well celebrated judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC), Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 156(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improb
