O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in CC No.174 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

On 18/11/2017 at about 05.00 am, the de-facto complainant along with his office employees, on information, went to the place of occurrence, wherein, they found some persons unloading the river sand. On enquiry, they revealed their name as Marimuthu and another person as Prabakar. Finding that they are using the vehicle for the purpose of taking sand for illegal selling, he lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime No.778 of 2017 was registered for the offences under section 379 IPC r/w 21(4) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. After completing the investigation, final report was filed and it was taken cognizance in CC No.174 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed on the ground that no material has been collected during the course of investigation to implicate this petitioner in the above said offence.

4.Heard both sides.

5.This petitioner has shown as A2-Prabakar. As mentioned in the complaint and final report, it has been stated that he was also present in the place of occurrence. On enquiry, he has stated that he is doing the above said illegal activity for profit. He has also stated that he has not involved in the above said occurrence. Except that, no other ground worth considering has been made.

6.At the time of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in view of the settled position of law, the very taking cognizance of the offence by the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy, is not maintainable, since only the Special Court has power to try such nature of the offence. And this position has been well settled, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2021 SC 496 in the case of Jayant and others Vs. State of MP and others, it has been stated that the offence of 379 IPC and 21(4) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act are operating in distinct and different field. It does not overlap. Section 379 IPC simpliciter can be tried by the judicial Magistrate. But however, the offence under section 21(4) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, the Magistrate court cannot take cognizance and try the offence. It must be tried only by the Special Court, which is having jurisdiction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

7.But however, reading of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, it is seen that not only the offence under section 379 IPC, but also the offence under section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 has been taken cognizance. The above said cognizance has been taken after settlement of law in the case of Jayant and others Vs. State of MP and others (AIR 2021 SC 496). But however, the offence under section 379 IPC can be proceeded. On that ground, taking cognizance of the offence under section 21(4) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 alone is quashed. The offence under section 379 IPC must be proceeded to its logical end.

8.With the above said direction, this criminal original petition stands partly allowed and the case in CC No.174 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy is hereby quashed with regard to the offence under section 21(4) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 alone. In respect of the offence under section 379 IPC, the trial court may proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

02/08/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To, 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruverambur Police Station, Trichy.

3.The Additional Publ