1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.12477 of 2011 1.Marimuthu 2.Balan @ Balakrishnan :Petitioners -Versus- State Rep. By The Sub-Inspector of Police, Moolakaraipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District. In Crime No.8 of 2010 :Respondent PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records of F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Moolakkaraipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District and to quash the same. For Petitioners:Ms.S.Ragaventhre For Respondent :Mrs.S.Prabha,Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This petition is filed to call for the records of F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Moolakkaraipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District and to quash the same. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 in crime No.8 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. r/w Section 36(A) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Act 1955 and Section 21 (1) (5) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957 on the basis of the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of Police. 3.The case of the prosecution is that on 29.01.2010 at 06.00 A.M., when the respondent police conducted vehicle checkup, the petitioners were driving the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 72 5182 along with Trailor with sand and when they stopped the vehicle and enquired, it is alleged that they transported the sand without any permission from the government and hence, a case been registered in crime No.8 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. r/w Section 36(A) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Act 1955 and Section 21 (1) (5) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957 on the basis of the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of Police. 4.At the time of argument, even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 and hence, the ingredients of the provisions have been made out and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition. 6.I have heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 7.On perusal of the record would show that the complaint has been given by one 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.It is also appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in D.Sudharshan V. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 115 and submits that when a special enactment has been dealt with such offences, invoked general provisions of Indian Penal Code will be meaningless and the Special enactment will override the general provisions of law and specific provisions will override the other provisions. 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 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act. But, here, the complaint has been given by the 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 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 petitioners are as A1 and A2 for the offences under Section 379 I.P.C. r/w Section 36(A) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Act 1955 and Section 21 (1) (5) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957 and the prosecution was launched by the Sub Inspector of Police, who was not authorised person 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.8 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police, against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Moolakaraipatti Police Station,Tirunelveli Dt. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai Vsm Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.12477 of 2011 RP/03.10.2011/2P/3C. 20.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/