IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 1469 OF 2025

AKTAR ALI BHANGI @ AKHTAR BHANGI

VS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Sudip Kushari, Adv. Mr. Tasnim Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Dhiman Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Ezaz Ahmed, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Amita Gaur, Adv.

Ms. Rajashree Tah, Adv.

Last heard on : 16.09.2025 Judgement on : 16.09.2025

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. Heard the submissions .

2. An application has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, corresponding to Section 528 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the FIR vide Garbetata P.S case number 518 of 2021 dated 13.12.2021, registered under section 379/411/413/414/186 of the Indian

Penal Code and 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957, pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhbeta , West Midnapore.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a poor farmer residing in a remote village and maintains his livelihood by cultivating his own land. Suddenly on 16.12.2021, some police personnel of the local Police Station came home of the petitioner and directed him to meet the officer-in-charge of the Local Police Station, and on the next date he met with the concerned Officer-in-Charge and came to know that an F.I.R is lodged against him by the Opposite Party, alleging that on 13.12.21, the ASI Vikas Dutta, in course of his patrolling duty received source information that the petitioner is excavating murrum illegally with the help of JCB and dumpers at a lonely Place near Bhutasole Bazaar, and accordingly he along with force reached there and found one JCB left, and he managed to apprehend two dumpers.While they were trying to remove the dumpers a group of hooligans under the leadership of the petitioner obstructed, the village Road and also obstructed them to do their lawful duty. It is the case of the petitioner that he is absolutely innocent and falsely, fabricated and is not aware about the alleged incident and in fact on the relevant day, he went to his relatives house for his personal work. He is not the owner or driver of any of the dumper as seized from the place of occurrence and no prima facie proof against the petitioner, which reveals the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits the complaint is lodged by a person not competent under the authority of law to lodge such a complaint and it itself, therefore is not maintainable. In this regard, attention is drawn to section 22 of Mines and Minerals. (Development Regulation) Act 1957, where it is specifically stated that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under, except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. In this regard relied upon a decision reported in, Chote Lal Choudhury and thers versus State of West Bengal, 2008 SCC online Cal 348

5. The learned advocate further relied upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in, Anshuman Banerjee and others versus the State of West Bengal and anr, CRR 353 of 2019. 2023CHC – AS: 3508, where it was observed that in terms of Rule 2(b) of the West Bengal M.M Concession Rules, 2016 and section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, the Sub Inspector was not the authorised person to lodge the complaint punishable under Section 21 of the Act of 1957 and no cognizance can be taken on the basis of the complaint lodged by S.I of police. It is further argued that the written complaint itself manifest that no person was found excepting two dumpers. It is further submitted that on the basis of the complaint, the other provisions of Indian penal code was also me