BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21908 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.18824 and 18827 of 2025

1. Vadivel

2. Ravi

3. Uikkattan

4. Chinnadurai

5. Perumal

6. Ramasamy ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by Inspector of Police,

Kovilpatti West Police Station,

Thoothukkudi District.

(Crime no.375/2018)

2.Essaki Raja ... Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C. No.368 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II,

Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi, and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Velmurugan For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), to call for the records in C.C.No.368 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District, and quash the same as against the petitioners.

Preface:

2. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is intended to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. It is not an appellate forum to assess the probative worth of the prosecution materials. Yet, where a prosecution is demonstrably barred by a statutory embargo, or where the Court taking cognizance lacks jurisdiction, this Court will be justified in interdicting such proceedings at the threshold.

3. The present petition concerns a prosecution arising out of an alleged seizure of sand carried in four lorries on 03.08.2018, and the consequent prosecution for Section 379 IPC and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act”).

Case of the prosecution:

4. The prosecution case, in sum, is that on 03.08.2018 at about 16.30 hours, at Innammanniachi Junction, Kovilpatti, a vehicle check was conducted by the police. Four lorries bearing Registration Nos. TN69 AD 4951, TN72 AC 0019, TN72 AM 1134 and TN72 AK 8417 were intercepted. It is alleged that the sand transported in the said vehicles was without valid authorisation/permits and therefore constituted illegal transportation of a mineral, apart from amounting to theft of sand. The vehicles were seized, an FIR was registered for Section 379 IPC, and thereafter a final report was filed adding Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act. The petitioners are shown as Accused No.1 and 3 to 7. The allegation, as pleaded by the petitioners, is that Accused No.1 to

4 were allegedly involved in transportation, and Accused 5 to 7 are alleged to have instructed them.

Case of the petitioners:

5. The petitioners contend, inter alia, as follows:

(i) The prosecution is actuated by mala fides, attributable to alleged “extraneous demands” said to have been made by the second respondent, and refusal thereof.

(ii) In view of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, no Court can take cognizance of an offence under the MMDR Act except upon a complaint in writing by an officer authorised by the Government. Hence, a police report/final report cannot be the foundation for cognizance under Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, and the inclusion of that offence and cognizance thereon are void.

(iii) The petitioners claim that they possessed valid transit permits at the time of inspection, therefore, the ingredients of theft/dishonesty are not made out.

(iv) The second respondent, who is stated to be the de-facto complainant, has “stepped into the shoes of the Investigating Officer”; according to the petitioners, this vitiates the investigation and taints the entire prosecution.

Submissions:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the cognizance for Section 21(1) MMDR Act cannot be taken on a police final report. The officer who set the criminal law in motion is also stated to have investigated, rendering the process unfair, and valid transit pass has not been considered.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that even if this C