1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11415 of 2011 1.Veerapandi 2.Muthupandi : Petitioners -Vs- The State through, The Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District, in crime No.373 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 charge sheet in C.C.No.171 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthudurai For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, G.A. (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.171 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as accused in crime No.373 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for the offence under Sections 379, 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint given by the Special Sub Inspector of Police and subsequently, it was taken on file in C.C.No.171 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. 3.The case of the prosecution is that on 28.05.2011 at 18.35 p.m., when the respondent police conducted vehicle check- up, the petitioner was driving the Dipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 76 J 8089 with sand and and when they stopped the vehicle and enquired, it is alleged that they transported the sand sand without any permission from the government and they threatened the police and hence, a case been registered in crime No.373 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for the offence under Sections 379, 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of Police, which was subsequently taken on file in C.C.No.171 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.At the time of argument, even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 hence, he prayed for the quashment of the proceedings. To substantiate the same, he relied upon the decisions of this Court. 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 from the government and hence, the ingredients of the provisions have been made out and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ 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 Vijayamohan, Special Sub Inspector of Police. 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.At this juncture, it is also appropriate to consider the decision of this Court 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. 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 the offence under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals Act. But, here, the complaint has been given by the Special Sub Inspector of Police 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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, 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C., and the prosecution was launched by the Special 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. 12.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.171 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, is hereby quashed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai arul rl/4 c- 20.9.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11415 of 2011 05.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/