IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1056 of 2007. - - - - - - - 1.Pradeep Kumar Joshi s/o Late kishori Lal Joshi, Resident of Dhantolia, Panitanki, P.S. Dehri, District Rohtas at Sasaram, at present M.L.A. residing at 85/40, Bailey Road, Patna-1 … Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Bihar. 2.The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Inspector General of police, Patna Range, Patna. 4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dehri, Rohtas. 5.The Superintendent of police, Rohtas at Sasaram. 6.The Sub-divisional Police Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 7.The Officer In-charge, Sasaram Mufassil P.S., Sasaram. 8.The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. 9.The Assistant Director, Mines and Geological Department, Rohtas at Sasaram. 10.Arun Kumar son of Late Ayodhya Prasad Srivastava, Resident of village Hurka, P.S.Tilouthu District Rohtas. ……… ………..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Amrendra Kumar No.1,Adv. For the state : M/s. Vishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha & Rohit Kishore Prasad, Advs. For the Res.No.10 : Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Adv. 12 05.05.2009 The petitioner seeks the quashing of the F.I.R. under Sasaram Mufassil P.S.Case No. 476 of 2007 under sections 341, 431, 434 and 384 I.P.C. lodged against him (Petitioner) by the respondent no.10, informant Arun Kumar. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner is lease holder of mines under plot no. 723 of Mauza Bansa, area 1.92 acres and that he was given passage for transporting minerals and the transportation work was being done peacefully, but, in the night of 29th March 2007, petitioner who is an M.L.A. and also leasee of adjoining land through which the passage passed got the passage way cut and obstructed and he was demanding Rangdari money of Rupees one lac for allowing transport of minerals through the passage 2 land. Due to blockade of the passage of the petitioner, it was alleged that the informant (Respondent no.10) was incurring heavy loss. On these allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged. A map along with a petition is annexed as Annexure- 2 and it is pointed out that the lease land of the petitioner is described in the map as Basa Amra land. The lease land of respondent no.10 is shown in the map (Annexure-2) as Block- ‘D’. In the map (Annexure-2) which is document of the petitioner himself, a passage way is shown across the land of the petitioner for going from the lease land of respondent no.10 towards the next passage passing through the lease land of Mostt. Savitri Kuer. The map contains the signature of the Mines Inspector, District Mines Officer and the Collector, Rohtas. The respondent no.10 and respondent no.9, the Assistant Director, Mines, Rohtas have filed their counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit dated 28th April 2009 of the respondent no.10 the same map, as was filed under Annexure-2 of petitioner’s petition has been filed and it mentions the same approach way or passage way through the land of petitioner’s lease land for transportation from the lease land of respondent no.10 and further passage through the lease land of Mostt. Savitri Kuer. Thus, according to the map, the passage through the land of the petitioner is mentioned. In the counter affidavit dated 20th April 2009 of the respondent no.9 it is mentioned that 3 the mines authorities had given the respondent no.10 a passage way for transportation through the land of the petitioner for further transportation through the lease land of Mostt. Savitri Kuer. Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit is the letter of the Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals to the Superintendent of police wherein it was recorded that the petitioner had complained the mines authorities alleging that the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.2 was false and in that context the mines authorities had visited the spot and had found that the passage way through the land of the petitioner had been dug up and blocked and that the mines authorities had filled in the passage way and had restored the transportation through the passage. It was also recorded that due to the blockade of the passage as done by the petitioner, a notice for termination of the lease of the petitioner within 30 days had also been issued to him. It has also been discussed in this report of the Assistant Director that under Clause-6 Part-3 of the Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 it is provided that the leasee shall provide passage through his lease land to the adjoining lease land holder. Thus, any leasee is bound to provide through his land approach or passage land for passage/transportation through his land to the adjoining lease land holder. Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit of Respondent no.9 is the notice given to 4 the petitioner for showing cause within 30 days why his lease be not terminated for intercepting/obstructing the passage through his land made available to the respondent no.10. In course of hearing, it was informed by the respondent no.10 that due to the petitioner’s activities in intercepting/obstructing the passage land petitioner’s lease with respect to 3 blocks has already been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was given the lease of the Blocks on which he had to carry out his mining operation and the respondent no.10 wanted a passage through his land and when passage was not made available to him, he lodged a false F.I.R. It was also submitted that even if it is assumed for argument sake that passage was there over the petitioner’s land and it was blocked, but it would at best indicate a civil dispute with respect to the claim of passage over petitioner’s land and that any criminal action is not made out, even when the petitioner had obstructed the movement of respondent no.10 over petitioner’s land. But in the facts and circumstances of the case as borne out from the documents of the petitioner and the respondent nos. 9 and 10 indicate that the petitioner and respondent no.10 are the adjoining lease holders. The documents vide Annexure-2 i.e. map as filed by the petitioner himself and is the map issued by the mining Department indicates a passage way over the land of the 5 petitioner for a passage of respondent no.10 for his further passage/transportation through the passage way across the lease land of Mostt. Savitri Kuer. The letters vide Annexures-2 & 3 of the respondent no.9 show that in view of the provisions under clause-6 of Part-3 of the Mines and minerals Concession Rules, 1972 wherein the petitioner was bound to provide the passage way through his lease land and such passage way was already provided by the mines authorities. There is allegation of the obstruction of the passage way with further allegation of demanding extortion money for providing passage. In view of the facts and circumstances and the materials available on the record, I do not feel convinced with the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. Accordingly, the prayer is refused and the application stands dismissed. However, dismissal of this application will not prejudice the petitioner in taking any defence at any stage of proceedings before the investigating agency or the learned trial court. Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad. J. )