Prasath vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, Prasath, was carrying M-sand with a GST bill and invoice, along with vehicle registration details. Upon being stopped by officials from the Mines and Minerals Department and Revenue Department, the petitioner presented these documents. However, the Assistant Geologist, Muthu, filed a complaint, leading to the registration of FIR No. 411 of 2022 by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station. The petitioner contends that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and its rules, specifically G.O.Ms.No.19, Industries (MMD.1) Department dated 25.01.2011, which was stayed by this Court, govern such matters. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, arguing that the police lack the authority to register cases under this Act.

Held

The Court held that the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is acceptable in light of previous orders of this Court. The Court found that the Police do not have the power to register a case directly under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. While the Act permits police officers to make complaints, the initial registration of an FIR by the police for an offence solely under the Mines and Minerals Act was deemed improper. The Court noted that the G.O.Ms.No.12, Industries MMCI, dated 02.02.2009, authorized police personnel to *make complaints*, not to register FIRs in the first instance for violations of the Mines and Minerals Act. The Court acknowledged the revenue's argument regarding Section 379 IPC but emphasized that the core of the issue revolved around the procedural correctness of registering the FIR under the Mines and Minerals Act. Consequently, the FIR was quashed. The Court directed the second respondent (Assistant Geologist) to file a report before the concerned Tahsildar, who would then prefer a private complaint before the Special Court under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. This principle, that cognizance for offences under the Mines and Minerals Act can only be taken on a complaint by a competent person as envisaged by the Act, was reiterated, referencing Crl.O.P.No.534 of 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Police have the authority to register a case under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, when the alleged offence pertains to the transportation of minerals? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Police do not possess the power to register cases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. They relied on a previous order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 15797 of 2022, which dealt with similar facts. The petitioner further contended that only the Tahsildar can file a private complaint before the notified court under the Act, based on a police report. The petitioner cited G.O.Ms.No.12, Industries MMCI, dated 02.02.2009, which authorized District Forest Officers and Police Personnel not below the rank of Inspector of Police to make complaints in writing to the court for offences under the Act. However, the petitioner emphasized that the registration of the case by the police was mechanical. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent objected, arguing that while the Tahsildar has power under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the present case also involves Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for which the police have the power to investigate. Therefore, the petition was not maintainable.