IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3884 of 2010 ---------------------------------- (C.C. NO.554/2005 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR, CRIME NO. 273/2001 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION) ............ PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- LALIJAN, S/O. KUNJUKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, LAL BHAVAN, MAYKAM KUZHI, VETTIYAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANDALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3884 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.554/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor, taken cognizance for the offences under Rules 4, 21 and 58 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 final report submitted by Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that offence under the MMDR Act and the Rules could be taken only on a complaint filed by the officer authorised under the Act and the Rules and not on a final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538) and the decision of the Apex Court in Jeewan Kumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 3884/10 2 3. Cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules was taken by the learned Magistrate on Annexure-A1 final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam. As held by this Court in Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLD 109) and Ismail v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KHC 677), cognizance taken for the offences under the MMDR Act, on a final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and not on a complaint filed by an officer authorised under the Act, can only be quashed, with liberty to the authorised officer to file a complaint. Petition is allowed. The cognizance taken in C.C.No.554/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor on Annexure-A1 final report is quashed. It is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken will not affect the rights of the officer authorised under the Act to file a complaint or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence in accordance with law. 22nd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv