1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16639 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 1.Kumar 2.Mariya Ponniah 3.Durai 4.Vanniappan .. Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 Vs. 1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli. (Crime No.77 of 2011) 2. Radhakrishnan, Village Administrative Officer, Thimmarajapuram, Tirunelveli. .. Respondents/Complainant PRAYER:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R. registered in crime No.773 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy No.1 Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) ORDER This Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused 1 to 4, to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R. registered in crime No.773 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. 2. Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the case was filed against the petitioners by the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 379 I.P.C. read with 4(1) and 4(2) and 21(1) (v) of Mines and Minerals Act, for the alleged occurrence taken place on 27.06.2011. He would further submit that the said complaint was given by the Village Administrative Officer to the respondent police station against the petitioners. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners were stated to have not possessed any licence for transporting sand, when the petitioners took sand in bullock carts. 4. He would further submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.114 Industries (MMC-1) dated 18.09.2000, the person authorised to make the complaint would be the Revenue Officer, not below the rank of the Inspector of Police He would again submit that however the respondent alone has prepared an 'Athachi' and seized the bullock carts, which were not in conformity with the rules made in the said G.O. He would also submit that the respondent continued the investigation, despite he was not empowered to do so as per the rules in the G.O. Therefore he would request the Court that the entire case registered against the petitioners is not sustainable and consequently the FIR registered on the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer registered by the respondent has to be quashed. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit in his argument that there is no dispute that the Revenue Officer, not below the rank of the Inspector of Police, has to give a complaint in respect of an offence under Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Regulation Act. But as far as this case is concerned, the petitioners have committed the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. also along with other offences under Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Regulation Act and therefore, the police has got power to look into the complaint and investigate the same. He would further submit in his argument that the IPC offences committed by the petitioners were investigated by the respondent Police and therefore, the continuance of investigation by the respondent is alright and it cannot be quashed and therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioners. 6. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2006(2) MLJ (Crl.) 115 in between (D.Sudharshan v.State, Rajakkamangalam Police Station) and submit that when a special enactment has been invoked to deal with a category of offence, invoking the general provisions of Indian Penal Code also, then the offences under I.P.C. could be over ridden by the Special Enactment. 8. The said judgment would go to show that the complaint ought to have been given by only the persons authorized by the rules. The relevant passage which would govern the case runs as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 “under such circumstances , it has been contended that the respondent-police do not have any jurisdiction to register the case and investigate the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner relief on a case reported in 1995 Crl.L.J.3816 (State of Karnataka v. Nagesh) , wherein it has been held as follows: “39. A close and careful reading of Section 22 extracted hereinabove, would show that there is a blanket prohibition on the Court from taking cognisance of any offence punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1957 or the rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. If the investigation undertaken by the Jalahalli Police Station on the strength of the information lodged by the Assistant Superintendent of Police not competent to exercise the powers, which formed the basis for his information, were to culminate in the formation of opinion by the Sub-Inspector of Police that petitioners 1 to 3 would be required to be forwarded for inquiry and trial for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 1957 and Sections 447 and 379 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, in so far as the quarrying operations in the land bearing Survey No.11 and if the final report is to be submitted in accordance with the opinion, it is evident from Section 22 that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognisance. The charge-sheet would be merely a scrap of paper. If the learned Magistrate could not take the cognisance of the offences, he cannot try the offence in accordance with law. In that view of the matter also, the registration of the case on the basis of the information furnished by the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the investigation taken up on the basis of the registration of the case and issuance of FIR would be a futile and fruit less exercise”. 9. When we go through the judgment referred supra, the facts which are mentioned in this case are similar to the case discussed above and therefore, those principles are squarely applicable to the present case. The Village Administrative Officer was the complainant in this case and upon his complaint only the case has been registered by the respondent police. The Revenue Officer, not below the rank of the Inspector of Police, is empowered to give complaint, but, it has not been done in the present case and in the absence of such presentation of complaint by the competent person under the said enactment namely Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 coupled with G.O.Ms.No.114 Industries (MMC-1) dated 18.09.2000 would prohibit the further investigation of the case. The inclusion of I.P.C. offence will not in any way competency to Village Administrative Officer, to give the complaint under the Special enactment namely Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals(Regulation and Development) Act 1957. If it is permitted, the object of giving exclusive power to the officers mentioned in the G.O. to give complaint would be defeated. The authorities specified in the said special enactment alone has got the power to give the complaint. But in this case the Village Administrative Officer, has given the complaint and it was further investigated by the police, which is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 against the object and scope of special enactment and the G.O. passed by the Government. 10. Therefore, the present complaint registered in Crime No.773 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, cannot be sustained and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in crime No.773 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police is quashed and the petition is ordered as prayed for. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16639 of 2011 20.12.2011 aru NSV/2.1.12/4P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/