1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5622 of 2011 Lawrence : Petitioner/Accused Vs. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. : Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned F.I.R, in crime No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, G.A. (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned F.I.R, in crime No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station and to quash the same. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in crime No.53 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for the offence under Sections 294(b), 353, 506(2), 307 I.P.C. and 4(1)(A) r/w 22 (1)of Mines and Minerals Development Regulations Act 1957 and 36(A) of Tamilnadu Minerals Concessions Act 1957, on the basis of the complaint given by the Special Sub Inspector of Police. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.02.2011 at 4.00 a.m.,when the respondent police conducted vehicle checkup, the petitioner was driving a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 72 AB 7439 with sand and when they stopped the lorry and enquired, it is alleged that the driver abused them filthy language against the police persons and made an criminal intimidation and attempted to kill them and hence, a case been registered in crime No.53 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for the offence under Sections 294(b), 353, 506(2), 307 I.P.C. and 4(1)(A) r/w 22 (1)of Mines and Minerals Development Regulations Act 1957 and 36(A) of Tamilnadu Minerals Concessions Act 1957, on the basis of the complaint given by the Special Sub Inspector of Police. 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 file his counter and submit that there is no scope for quashing the F.I.R. since the petitioner is a rowdy as per the history sheet No.30 of 2009 and he has committed offences under various category and he is shifting from one place to another place. He would further submit that the petitioner has driven the lorry with full load of sand and when he was stopped and enquire, he abused the police personnels with filthy language and voluntarily driven the vehicle fast to kill them and hence, the ingredients of the provisions have been made out. He would further submit that as per the government order, the Inspector of Police is entitled to register a case and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the 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 Aruldoss, 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 Nady 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 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. 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 the Mines and Minerals Act. But, here, the complaint has been given by the Special Sub Inspector https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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 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 294(b), 353, 506(2), 307 I.P.C. and 4(1)(A) r/w 22 (1)of Mines and Minerals Development Regulations Act 1957 and 36(A) of Tamilnadu Minerals Concessions Act 1957 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 crime No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, Advocate (SR.No.24117) Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5622 of 2011 22.07.2011 arul NSV/29.07.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/