1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12307 of 2011 1.Muthu 2.Ravi : Petitioners -Vs- The State: rep. by The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramnad District. Crime No.103 of 2011 : Respondent PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. in crime No.103 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthudurai For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha, G.A. (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. in crime No.103 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as an accused in crime No.522 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police for the offence under Sections 379 I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint given by the Head Constable. 3.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2011 at 06.00 a.m, when the respondent police conducted vehicle checkup, the petitioners were driving the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 63 P 0416 along with Trailor bearing Registration No.TN 65 E 5749 with sand and when they stopped the vehicle and enquired, it is alleged that they transported the sand without any permission from the government and hence, a case been registered in crime No.103 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for the offence under Sections 379 I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint given by the Head Constable. 4.At the time of argument, even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised so many grounds, the main and foremost submission is that the complaint has not been given by the authorized person and hence, the complaint itself is non exist in the eye of law and the second ground is that the respondent police has registered a case for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. instead of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulations Act, 1957, which is the special enactment for sand theft and hence, he prayed for the quashment of the proceedings. To substantiate the same, he relied upon the decisions of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The learned Government Advocate would submit that there is no scope for quashing the F.I.R. and the petitioners have transported the sand illegally without any permission and hence, the ingredients of the provisions have been made out and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the criminal original petition. 6.I have heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7.On perusal of the record would show that the complaint has been given by one Head Constable. 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.” 8.It is also appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in D.Sudharshan V. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 115 and submits that when a special enactment has been dealt with such offences, invoked general provisions of Indian Penal Code will be meaningless and the Special enactment will override the general provisions of law and specific provisions will override the other provisions. 9.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 sand theft. But, here, the complaint has been given by the Head Constable and the case has not been registered under the special enactment which is prescribed for sand theft and therefore, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 10.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. 11.Considering the said decisions along with the facts of the presence case, the petitioner is an accused for the offence under Sections 379 I.P.C., and instead of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulations Act, 1957, which has been prescribed for sand theft, the prosecution was launched by the Head Constable, who was not authorised person, 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 12.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in crime No.103 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramnad District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Arul SR : 27.09.2011 : 2p/3c Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12307 of 2011 16.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/