Rakesh Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the FIR is liable to be quashed. Regarding the IPC sections, the Court noted that the seized coal had been released by the learned Magistrate considering the Investigating Officer's report that GST and e-way bills were genuine, and that the petitioners had been granted anticipatory bail. This led the Court to conclude that the IPC sections were likely not attracted, bringing the case within the ambit of the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhajan Lal (supra) concerning the quashing of proceedings where no offence is made out. Concerning the MMDR Act, the Court referred to Section 22, which mandates that cognizance of offences under the Act or its rules can only be taken upon a written complaint made by a person authorized by the Central or State Government. The Court also referred to the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., which excludes a police report. Since the FIR was lodged by the police and not filed as a written complaint before the Magistrate, the Court found that the procedure under Section 22 of the MMDR Act was not followed. Therefore, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding.

Facts

The petitioners, Rakesh Kumar and Rajiv Ojha, sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated vide Govindpur (Dhanbad) P.S. Case No. 213 of 2022. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by the District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, alleging illegal receipt and transportation of 2103.50 Tonnes of raw coal by Shivam Coke Pvt. Ltd. The allegations included discrepancies in the stock register, purchase of coal without proper e-transport challans, use of e-way bills not matching vehicle details, and absence of CCTV cameras. The petitioners argued that they had purchased imported coal, for which e-way bills were sufficient, and that the coal had been released by the Judicial Magistrate, considering GST and e-way bills genuine. They contended that IPC sections were not made out and that proceedings under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) should be initiated by way of a complaint, not an FIR.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered under Sections 379, 411, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 & 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), along with Rules 7, 9, 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law, particularly in light of the alleged lack of cognizable offences under IPC and the procedural requirements for initiating proceedings under the MMDR Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the FIR should be quashed based on the principles laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., specifically guidelines 1 and 3, as the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against them. They contended that the IPC sections were not attracted, especially since the seized coal was released by the Magistrate upon finding GST and e-way bills genuine. Furthermore, they argued that Section 22 of the MMDR Act mandates that cognizance of offences under the Act can only be taken upon a written complaint by an authorized person, not an FIR, citing Calcutta Jaipour Paribahan Private Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Others and Pancham Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Another. They asserted that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent-State argued that although the coal was released, Form-D was not found, which attracts the sections of the MMDR Act. They submitted that there is no bar to filing an FIR and that the FIR was rightly registered.