1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:04.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.196 of 2011 Muthukrishnan :Petitioner -Vs- 1. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No. 197 of 2010) 2. Sri Thamarai Vishnu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District. :Respondents Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in pertaining to the FIR registered in Crime No.197 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal in regard to the petitioner and pass any other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper as to the circumstances to this case. For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondents No:1 : Mr.L.Murugan,Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking for the quashment of the F.I.R. in Crime No.197 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent police. 2.Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the case was filed against the petitioner by the first respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 379 of I.P.C. r/w Section 21(1)(5) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Regulation Act 1957 Rule 36(A) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Concession Rule 1997 for the alleged occurrence taken place on 17.09.2010. He would further submit that the said complaint was given by the Sub-Inspector of Police against the petitioner He would further submit in his argument that when the petitioner took sand in Tractor No.TN 25V 9946, Trailor No. TN 72V 2119, it was intercepted and the driver of the tractor was arrested by the police and a confession was recorded from him. However, the petitioner was booked by the respondent police and a case has been registered. He would further submit that as per the G.O.Ms.No.114 Industries (MMC-1) dated 18.09.2000, the person authorised to make the complaint is the Revenue Officer. He would again submit that however the respondent prepared an 'Athachi' and seized the tractor and trailer which was not in conformity with the rules made in the said G.O. He would also submit that the respondent continues the investigation despite he is not empowered to do as per the said G.O. Therefore he would request the Court that the entire case registered against the petitioner is not sustainable and therefore, the said FIR filed on the complaint given by the Sub-Inspector of police registered by the respondent has to be quashed. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that there is no dispute that the Revenue Officer has to give a complaint in respect of an offence under Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Regulation Act. But as far as this case is concerned the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. also, along with other offences under Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Regulation Act and therefore, the police has got power to look into the complaint and investigate the same. He would further submit in his argument that the IPC offence committed by the petitioner was investigated by the Respondent Police and therefore, the continuance of investigation by the respondent is alright and it cannot be quashed and therefore, he would request the court to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner. 5.I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2006(2) MLJ (Crl.)115 in between (D.Sudharshan v. State, Rajakkamangalam Police Station) When a special enactment has been invoked to deal with such a category of offences, invoking the general provisions of Indian Penal Code be over ridden by the Special Enactment. 7.The said judgment would go to show that the complaint ought to have been given by the Revenue Officers like Tahsildar or Village Administrative Officer. The relevant passage which would govern the case runs as follows: “Under such circumstances, it has been contended that the respondent-police do not have any jurisdiction to register the case and investigate the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a case reporte in 1995 Crl.L.J. 3816 (State of Karnataka v. Nagesh), wherein it has been held as follows: “39. A close and careful reading of Section 22 extracted hereinabove, would show that there is a blanket prohibition on the Court from taking cognisance of any offence punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1957 or the rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. If the investigation undertaken by the Jalahalli Police Station on the strength of the information lodged by the Assistant Superintendent of Police not competent to exercise the powers, which formed the basis for his information, were to culminate in the formation of opinion by the Sub-Inspector of Police that petitioners 1 to 3 would be required to be forwarded for inquiry and trial for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 1957 and Sections 447 and 379 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, in so far as the quarrying operations in the land bearing Survey No.11 and if the final report is to be submitted in accordance with the opinion, it is evident from Section 22 that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognisance. The charge-sheet would be merely a scrap of paper. If the learned Magistrate could not take the cognisance of the offences, he cannot try the offence in accordance with law. In that view of the matter also, the registration of the case on the basis of the information furnished by the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the investigation taken up on the basis of the registration of the case and issuance of FIR would be a futile and fruit less exercise.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.Yet another judgment cited by the petitioner for the same proposition of law, as reported in 2007(1) MLJ 392 in between (K.Subramani and others v. State by Inspector of Police, Nallore Police Station, Salem District) and the relevant passage would run as follows: “8.Admittedly, the “District Forest Officer is the competent authority to lodge a complaint before the learned Magistrate. Sections the Act specifically states that the Court take cognisance of the offence only on the complaint given by an authorised person. By way of notification, the authorised person has been named as “District Forest Officer”. The present complaint admittedly was not filed by the “District Forest Officer”, but by the Assistant Director of Mines. Though I.P.C. offences are also included along with the penal provisions of Mines and Minerals Act, I find that the provisions of I.P.C. are added in the case only for the purpose of substantiating the offence under the Mines and Minerals Act. When a special enactment specifically confers power on a particular officer, it has to be done only by that authorised officer. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is directly applicable to the case on hand.” 9.When we go through the judgments referred supra, the facts which are mentioned in this case are similar to the case discussed above and therefore, those principles are squarely made applicable to the present case. The Sub-Inspector of Police was the complainant and upon his complaint only the case has been registered by the respondent police which is not sustainable. The Revenue Officer who is empowered to give complaint, has not given any complaint in the present case and in the absence of such complaint given by the competent person, the said enactment namely Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 coupled with G.O.Ms.No.114 Industries (MMC-1) dated 18.09.2000 would prohibit the further progress of the case, through the second respondent. The inclusion of I.P.C offence will not in any way delegate jurisdiction to the respondent police to investigate the offence under the Special enactment namely Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957. If it is permitted, the object of giving exclusive power to the Revenue Officer to give complaint would be defeated. The authorities specified in the said special enactment alone has got the power to give the complaint. But in this case the Sub-Inspector of Police has given the complaint and it was further investigated by the police which is against the object and scope of special enactment and the G.O. passed by the Government. 10.Therefore, the present complaint registered in Crime No.197 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent police cannot be sustained and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No.197 of 2010 is quashed and the petition is ordered as prayed for Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To:1.The Inspector of Police,Nanguneri Police Station,Tirunelveli District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai +1CC to Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, Advocate. SR.No.11406. Akv/RP/29.03.2011/3P/4C. Crl.OP.(MD)No.196 of 2011,04.03.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/