BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2396 of 2011 1.Karuthapandi 2.Gurusamy ..Petitioners – Vs - 1.The State through The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station, Sankarnkovil, Tirunelveli District 2.N.Thirupathi, The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District ..Respondents PRAYER:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the F.I.R. In Crime No.197 of 2010 on the file of the respondent . For Petitioners : Mr.P.Muthudurai For R1 : Mr.L.Murugan, Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) ORDER This Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused seeking for the quashment of the F.I.R. in Crime No.197 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent police. 2.Heard Mr.P.Muthudurai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent. 3.THe learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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) 4(ii) r(b) read with Rule 21 of Mines and Minerals Act, for the alleged occurrence taken place on 20.12.2010. He would further submit that the said complaint was given by the Inspector of Police attached to the 1st respondent police station against the petitioners. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners have not possessed any licence for transporting sand and when the petitioners took sand Tractor No.TC 4098 in Trailer No.TN 72 W 288, it was intercepted and the owner of the tractor was arrested by the police and a confession was recorded from him. However, the petitioners were booked by the respondent police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and a case has been registered. He would further submit that as per the G.O.Ms.No.114 Industries (MMC-1) dated 18.09.2000, the person authorised to make the complaint is the Revenue Officer. He would again submit that however the respondent prepared an 'Athachi' and seized the tractor which was not in conformity with the rules made in the said G.O. He would also submit that the respondent continues the investigation despite he is not empowered to do as per the said G.O. Therefore he would request the Court that the entire case registered against the petitioners itself is not sustainable and therefore, the said FIR filed on the complaint given by the Inspector of Police registered by the respondent has to be quashed. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit in his argument that there is no dispute that the Revenue Officer 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 offences under Section 379 I.P.C. 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. 5.I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2006(2) MLJ (Crl.) 115 in between (D.Sudharshan v.State, Rajakkamangalam Police Station) When a special enactment has been invoked to deal with such a category of offence, invoking the general provisions of Indian Penal Code could be over ridden by the Special Enactment. 7.The said judgment would go to show that the complaint ought to have been given by the District Forest Officer only and not by any other Revenue Officer like Tahsildar or Village Administrative Officer. The relevant passage which would govern the case runs as follows: “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 reporte 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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”. 8.Yet another judgment cited by the petitioner for the same proposition of law, as reported in 2007(1) MLJ 392 in between (K.Subramani and others v. State by Inspector of Police, Nallore Police Station, Salem District) and the relevant passage would run as follows: “8.Admittedly, the “District Forest Officer is the competent authority to lodge a complaint before the learned Magistrate. Sections the Act specifically states that the Court take cognisance of the offence only on the complaint given by an authorised person. By way of notification, the authorised person has been named as “District Forest Officer”. The present complaint admittedly was not filed by the “District Forest Officer”, but by the Assistant Director of Mines. Though I.P.C. offences are also included along with the penal provisions of Mines and Minerals Act, I find that the provisions of I.P.C. are added in the case only for the purpose of substantiating the offence under the Mines and Minerals Act. When a special enactment specifically confers power on a particular officer, it has to be done only by that authorised officer. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is directly applicable to the case on hand”. 9.When we go through the judgments referred supra, the facts which are mentioned in this case are similar to the case discussed above and therefore, those principles are squarely made applicable to the present case. The Inspector of Police was the complainant and upon his complaint only the case has been registered by the respondent police which is not sustainable. The Revenue Officer who is empowered to give complaint, has not given any complaint in the present case and in the absence of such complaint given by the competent person, 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 delegate jurisdiction to the respondent police to investigate the offence 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Revenue Officer 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 Sub- Inspector of Police has given the complaint and it was further investigated by the police which is 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.197 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police cannot be sustained and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings, in Crime No.197 of 2010 is quashed and the petition is ordered as prayed for. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station, Sankarnkovil, Tirunelveli District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cC to Mr.P.Muthudurai, Advocate, SR.No.10668 arul rl/4c – 7.3.2011 Crl.O.P(MD)No.2396 of 2011 25.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/