1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.10399 of 2011 Kuttiraja ... Petitioner Vs. The State through the Inspector of Police, Pavoor Chatiram Police Station, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Crime No.231 of 2011. ... Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.213 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. For Petitioner : M/s. P.Muthudurai For Respondent : Mr. A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.213 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and quash the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing a case in C.C.No.213 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 379 I.P.C., 4(1)(A)(i) r/w. 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957. He further submitted that the person, who initiated the criminal proceeding is not a competent, as per the Government Order passed in accordance with Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957. Hence, he come forward with this application for quashing the entire proceedings. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the person, who initiated the criminal proceeding is a competent to initiate the proceeding. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. 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 offence alleged in that F.I.R. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Considering the said decisions along with the facts of the presence case, on the basis of the complaint given by one G.Rajendran, Sub-Inspector of Police, Pavoor Chatiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District, a case has been registered in C.C.No.213 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 379 I.P.C., 4(1) (A)(i) r/w. 21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957. Admittedly, the averments made in the petition has clearly proved the petitioner herein has committed theft of one unit of river sand. So he was prosecuted under Section 4(1)(A)(i) r/w. 21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957. As per the G.O. passed in accordance with Section 22 of Mines and Minerals Act, not below the rank of Inspector of Police is not competent to initiate the proceeding and the prosecution was launched by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was not authorised and hence, following the said judgments, 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. 9. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in C.C.No.213 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi as against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi 2. The Inspector of Police, Pavoor Chatiram Police Station, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Akv ssk/29.08.2011 /4c-3p/- Crl.O.P(MD)No.10399 of 2011 11.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/