Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Vijayakumar, J
Christopher John – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition | Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 8528 and 8530 of 2026 | C.C.No.16 of 2025 | Crime No.211 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Palanivelayutham
For the Respondents: R.Meenakshi Sundaram
A criminal petition to quash proceedings will not be granted when there is a prima facie case established by evidence, leaving disputed facts regarding intent and presence at the scene to be determined during the course of a full trial.
Headnote:The petitioners sought to quash charges under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The allegations concerned the transportation of P-sand beyond the authorized transit permit limits. The court found that the vehicle was intercepted at a state border, establishing a prima facie case regarding unauthorized transportation, necessitating a trial. The primary issue was whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed given the contention that the vehicle had not crossed the border and the owner's absence from the scene. The court held that the presence or absence of the owner and the intent to cross the border are matters of evidence to be determined during the trial, and the prima facie violation of the transit permit provided sufficient ground to proceed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis for charges and facts of the case regarding unauthorized mineral transport. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding presence at the scene and intent to cross state borders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's refusal to quash proceedings due to prima facie evidence of transit permit violation. (Para 6) |
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by A1 and A2 in C.C.No.16 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, seeking to quash the charge sheet, wherein, the petitioners are charged with the offences under Sections 303 (2) of BNS and Section 21 (1)
of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.
2. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that though the second petitioner's vehicle was having transit permit to Urambo (Tamil Nadu State), the vehicle which was carrying P-sand was intercepted at Pinkulam (Tamil Nadu - Kerala Border). Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner was attempting to carry the P-Sand out of Tamil Nadu into Kerala.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, lorry has not crossed the Tamil Nadu Border and entered into Kerala. He further submitted that the second petitioner, who is the owner of the lorry was not present in the scene of occurrence and therefore, the case of the second petitioner stands on a different footing. He further submitted that the vehicle was having a valid transit pass for carrying P-sand.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
5. As far as the case of the second petitioner that he was not present in the scene of occurrence is concerned, it is a matter of trial as to whether he had given instructions to the driver to drive the vehicle upto Kerala or not.
6. It could be seen from the records that the transit pass was valid only up to Urampu which is located in Tamil Nadu. However, the vehicle has been intercepted at Pinkulam (Tamil Nadu - Kerala Border). In such circumstances, there is a prima facie case as against the petitioners and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interefere with the trial. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observation made by this Court. The personal appearance of the petitioners shall be dispensed with unless specifically directed by the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
