1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.11665 of 2011 Ananth ... Petitioner Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sutthamalli Police Station, Alankulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. (In Crime No.64 of 2010) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records of F.I.R. in Crime No.64 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police and to quash the same as illegal and abuse process of law. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthudurai For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed to call for the records of F.I.R. in Crime No.64 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police and to quash the same as illegal and abuse process of law. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.64 of 2010 for the offences under Section 379 I.P.C. r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act on the basis of the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of Police stating that the petitioner herein has committed the theft of river sand. He further submitted that the respondent police instead of invoking Section 21 of Mines and Minerals Act 1957, they invoked Section 379 I.P.C. r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act and hence, he prayed for quashing the F.I.R. 3. The learned Government Advocate would submit that there is no scope for quashing the F.I.R. and the petitioner has transported the river sand illegally without any permission and hence, the ingredients of the provisions have been made out and the case has been registered by the competent authority. He further submitted that the accused persons were caused damage to the property and therefore Section 3 of TNPPDL Act has also been invoked along with Section 379 I.P.C. 4. At the time of argument, even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised so many grounds, the main and foremost submission is that the complaint has not been given by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 authorized person and hence, the complaint itself is non exist in the eye of law and hence, he prayed for the quashment of the proceedings. To substantiate the same, he relied upon the decisions of this Court. 5. I have heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. On perusal of the record would show that the complaint has been given by one Ramesh, Sub Inspector of Police. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the government order, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned as follows: “The Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby authorises the District Forest Officers and the Police personnel not below the rank of Inspector of Police, to make complaint in writing to the Court of competent jurisdiction for any offence punishable under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.” 7. At this juncture, it is also appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in D.Sudharsan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District, wherein, this Court has held that when a special enactment has been invoked to deal with such offences, invoking general provisions of Indian Penal Code will be meaningless and hence, the Village Administrative Officer is not the authorised person by the State Government to proceed against the accused for the offence alleged in that F.I.R. 8. Considering the said decision along with the facts of the present case, as per the government order, only the police official not below the rank of Inspector of Police is authorised to proceed against the accused for the offence under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals Act. But, here, the complaint has been given by the Sub Inspector of Police and therefore, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 9. The complainant is not the competent authority to initiate the proceedings, while considering the order dated 16.06.2011 made in Crl.O.P.No.5415 of 2011, wherein it has held that when a prosecution was launched by a person, who was not authorised, the complaint is liable to be quashed as per the decision in Balasubramanian and 3 others Vs. The State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District reported in 2009-2-L.W. (Crl.) 878. 10. Considering the said decisions along with the facts of the present case even though, the case has been registered for the offences under Section 379 I.P.C r/w Section 3 of T.N.P.P.D.L. Act, for theft of river sand, since there is a special enactment under the Mines and Minerals Act, the respondent police ought to have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 registered the case for the offence under Section 21 of Mines and Minerals Act. Further, the prosecution has been launched by the Sub Inspector of Police, who is not an authorised person to do the same. Hence, I am of the view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings and the criminal original petition is liable to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in crime No.64 of 2010 pending on the file of the respondent police, is hereby quashed against the petitioner alone. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Sutthamalli Police Station, Alankulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.11665 of 2011 06.09.2011 vsm SMA/28.9.2011/3C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/