SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 5778

PATNA HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Jha, J
Bhairab Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.544 of 2024 | Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2079 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Binodanand Mishra, Sandeep Kumar
For the Respondents: Md. Harun Quareshi, Naresh Dikshit, Kalpana, Raghwendra Kumar

The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, will not adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, such as ownership of land or truthfulness of allegations in an FIR, as these are matters that must be tested during a full-fledged trial before the competent court.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Indian Penal Code - Section 379/34 - Criminal Writ Jurisdiction - Quashing of First Information Report - Principles laid down for quashing FIR, as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, do not permit the court to adjudicate disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction. (Para 10)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed questions of fact - It is a settled position that in the exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226, the court shall not venture into the resolution of contentious questions that require evidence and a full-fledged trial. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered for alleged illegal mining, transportation of minerals, and theft. The petitioners contended that the land in question was private, and the activities were conducted to level the earth for agricultural purposes. The authorities countered that illegal mining of minerals was occurring without the required permits and that the land status was contested.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that there were direct conflicts between the parties over the nature of the land and the legitimacy of the excavation. Whether the site is private property or government-regulated land, and whether the acts triggered statutory penalties, could not be resolved through the assertions provided in the writ petitions.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its power to quash the criminal proceedings when the fundamental facts regarding land ownership and the nature of the acts performed are under dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disputes concerning proprietary rights and the factual circumstances of the alleged offence must be adjudicated during trial. Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for determining contentious questions of fact.

Result: The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to raise their contentions before the trial court in the appropriate legal proceeding.

Table of Content
1. summary of fir and factual allegations regarding illegal mining. (Para 1)
2. court refuses to adjudicate disputed facts under writ jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

CAV JUDGMENT

Date :16-12-2025

Cr.WJC No. 544 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, Bhairab Thakur, seeking following relief(s):

(i) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R bearing the Rudrapur P.S. Case No 124 of 2023 dated 21/10/2023 registered for offences under section 04/21 Mines And Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, MMRD Act 1957 & 56 Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage), Revised Rules 2021 and Section 379/34 of I.P.C.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate declaration holding that institution of FIR and its investigation by the Police is contrary to the provisions of section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and rule 61 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, prevention of illegal mining, transportation & storage) Rules 2019.

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate declaration holding institution of F.I.R by the Police is totally without Jurisdiction and it is fit to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) For any other relief(s) to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

02. Cr.WJC No. 2079 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, Sushil Kumar Yadav @ Sushil Yadav, seeking following relief(s):

(i) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R bearing the Rudrapur P.S. Case No 124 of 2023 dated 21/10/2023 registered for offences under section 379/34 of IPC 04/21 MMRD Act 1957 & 56 Bihar Minerals (Goods and Illegal Mining, Transport & Storage) Prevention, Revised Rules 2021.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate declaration holding that institution of FIR and its investigation by the Police is contrary to the provisions of section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and rule 61 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, prevention of illegal mining, transportation & storage) Rules 2019.

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate declaration holding institution of F.I.R by the Police is totally without Jurisdiction and it is fit to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to release the 6-wheeler tipper bearing Chasis No. HAR3DXSSL02819569, Engine No. H00257771, Reg. No. BR32GB6559 which has been taken away by the police 20.07.2024 from the petrol pump namely Ranjit Highway Service near Kanhauli (Jhanjharpur).

(v) For any other relief(s) to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

03. Briefly stated, common facts in both the aforesaid case(s), are that the District Mining Officer, Madhubani gave a written report to the SHO, Rudrapur P.S., Madhubani about illegal mining and seizure of vehicle and on the basis of said written report, Rudrapur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2023 has been instituted under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (for short ‘the MMDR Act’) and Rule 56 in Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 (for short ‘the 2019 Rules’). In the written report, it has been stated that at 10:00 PM on 20.10.2023, the informant received a secret information about illegal mining of sand in between river Kamla and its eastern embankment road at Village - Mahrail by a JCB. When the raid was conducted, a JCB, and one Tipper (six wheeler) loaded with white sand, were found and the drivers fled away from the spot on seeing the raiding party. Photographs and measurement were taken for the area from which illegal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top