1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9269 of 2011 1.Kannan 2.Shanmugasundaram : Petitioners -Vs- 1.The Inspector of Police, Chockampatti Police Station, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. : Respondent PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. in crime No.153 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthudurai For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Govt.Advocate(Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. in crime No.153 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as accused in crime No.153 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for the offence under Sections 353, 506(i) and 379 I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint given by the Special Sub Inspector of Police, alleging that the petitioners have committed theft of sand. He would further submit that even though, there is a special enactment for the offence relating to Mines and Minerals Act, the respondent police has registered the case only for the offence under Sections 353, 506(i) and 379 I.P.C. against the petitioners. He would further submit that as per the special enactment under the provision of Mines and Minerals Development Regulations Act 1957 and Tamilnadu Minerals Concessions Act 1957, only the person not below the rank of Inspector can institute the prosecution, but, in the present case the Special Sub Inspector of Police has given the complaint, who is not the competent person to do so and thus, he prayed for the quashment of the F.I.R. To substantiate his claim, he relied upon the decision in D.Sudharsan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District, reported in (2006(2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 115. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Heard the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) and perused the materials available on records. 4.Perusal of the F.I.R., it has been specifically mentioned that “bgah; tpyhrk; Bfl;Lj ; bjhpe;j jpUBtl;ley ;Yhh; khlrhkp Bfhtpy; bjU, rptd; Bfhdhh; kfd; fz;zd ;, i&a{h; bghparhkp Bfhdhh; kfd; rz;KfRe;juk ; Mfpa nUtUk; TN 76 E 2125 vd;w rptg;g [ fyh; ouhf;lhpy; gpd;dhy; gjpt[ vz; ny;yhj g[S fyh; bla ;yhpy; 1 a{dpl; Fsj;J kz; Vw;wp i& ouhf;liu fz;zd ; Xl;o te;jij ehA;fs ; kwpj;J Fsj;J kz; Vw;wp tu muR mDkjp rPl;L cs;sjh vd;W tprhhpf;ifapy;, Xl;Ldh ; fz;zd ; ve;j mDkjp rPl;Lk ; ny;iy vd;whd;. clBd, cld; te;j rz;KfRe;juk ; ePA;fs ; vg;go kzy; ouhf;liu gpof;fyhk;, cA;fisa[k ; cA;fs ; fhty;epiyaj;ija [k ; vd;d bra;fpBwd; ghh; vd;Wk ;, ouhf;liu fhty;epiyak; bfhz;L Bghdhy; cA;fis bfhy;yhky; tplkhl;Bld ; vd;W kpul;o tpl;L Xotpl;lhh ;fs ;.“. Hence, it is clearly proved that the petitioners have committed a theft of sand, for which there is a provision under Mines and Minerals Act. But, the respondent has registered the case only for the offence under Section 353, 506(i) and 379 I.P.C., which is a general provision. 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 reported in (2006(2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 115, 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. 5.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 only under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals Act. But, here, the complaint has been given by the Sub Inspector of Police and the case has also been registered under Section 353, 506(i) and 379 I.P.C., which is a general provision and therefore, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 6.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. 7.Considering the said decisions along with the facts of the present case, the petitioner, is an accused for the offence under Sections 353, 506(i) and 379 I.P.C., for theft sand. As per the decision in D.Sudharsan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District reported in (2006(2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 115, when a special enactment has been invoked to deal with such offences, invoking general provisions of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Indian Penal Code will be meaningless. The prosecution was also launched by the Sub Inspector of Police, who was not authorised to do so. Hence, 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. 8.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in crime No.153 of 2011 on the file of the respondent is hereby quashed, against the petitioners. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Chockampatti Police Station, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Arul ssk/11.08.2011 /3c-3p/- Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9269 of 2011 26.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/