ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.21 of 2020 dated 29.08.2020, on the file of the 1st Respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on information, the Village Administrative Officer along with his Assistant, visited the place of occurrence and found that by using Hitachi machine JCB, sand was found to be dug to a depth of 20 feet and removed the gravel sand. They also found

16 lorries bearing Registration Nos.TN-67-BW-4493, TN-18-AQ-6003, TN-63-BE-3245, TN-63-BC-1605, TN-19-A-8980, TN-63-BC-0466, TN-63-BC-3484, TN-63-BB-2216, TN-22-BL-9207, TN-63-BD-2024, TN-63-BF-3583, TN-63-B-7979, TN-64-Q-7347, TN-63-AA-5217, TN-64-

M-2341 and Tn—64-T-8799 were engaged in their work.

ii) So, he filed a complaint, which was registered in Crime No.221 of

2020, on the file of the first respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 511 IPC and Section 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. Based upon the complaint, the investigation is undertaken.

3. Seeking quashment of the First Information Report, the petitioners are before this Court, by way of this petition mainly on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the First Information Report and they are in no way involved in the said occurrence. Even as per the allegations made in the First Information Report, only the preparation appears to have been made, there is no allegation that they attempted to load the sand into the vehicle.

4. Moreover, Section 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals (Development &

Regulation) Act, is a non-cognizable offence. The Police is not competent to register the case. Only the competent person can file private complaint. So, mere intention is not punishable.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Reading of the First Information Report shows that in the place of occurrence about 10 vehicles were stationed, where the illegal mining activities were going on. So, the stationing of the vehicles in the place of occurrence, gave a reasonable suspicious to the informant about their attempt. Whether any real attempt was made or not and the reason for stationing the vehicles in the place of occurrence, can be found out only during the course of investigation.

7. The next argument that only the act, the competent person i.e., the Revenue Officials, is competent to file a private complaint for the offence under Section (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. But, it is a settled principle of law that when it is coupled with offence under Section 379 of IPC, the Police is competent to file a First Information Report and investigate the matter. So, the second ground is not available, now, to the petitioner. The matter has to be thoroughly investigated by the Police. So, quasing of the First Information Report on the basis of the argument advanced by the petitioner will amount to miscarriage of justice.

8. So, I find no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves dismissal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

9. However, considering the nature of allegation and the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction is given to the respondent police to complete the investigation within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and file a final report.

30.4.2021 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order dss G.ILANGOVAN,J., dss Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To

1.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Sivagangai District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1103 of 2021 and Crl.MP(MD)No.506 of 2021

30.4.2021