Court finds theft of minor minerals from government land; FIR to proceed under IPC sections 379 and 120B
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, has delivered a significant judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar v. State of H.P., quashing the FIR registered under sections 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The judgment holds that cognizance of offences under these sections cannot be taken on the basis of a police report. However, the FIR will continue for offences under sections 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to theft and criminal conspiracy.
The case arose from an FIR registered on 29th January 2022 at Sujanpur Police Station, Hamirpur, regarding illegal mining activities. The police, acting on secret information, discovered the theft of minor minerals using JCBs and tippers, allegedly being transported to the petitioner Vijay Kumar's stone crusher. The investigation revealed that the mining was conducted on government land, not leased to any individual. Despite the petitioner's claims that mining was permitted under a lease to Bhim Singh Rangra, the court found prima facie evidence of theft from government land.
Justice Kainthla emphasized the distinction between offences under the Mines Act and the IPC, citing Supreme Court precedents. The court clarified that while the Mining Act violations require a complaint by an authorized officer, police can investigate and charge individuals under IPC for theft. The judgment referenced important Supreme Court decisions, including State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, and reiterated the principles for quashing FIRs under section 482 of the CrPC.
The petitioner argued that the FIR lacked evidence of cognizable offences and claimed the machinery was not operational at the time of police inspection. However, the court rejected these claims, noting that the petitioner's involvement in the mining activity was evident, and the provisions of IPC 120B for conspiracy were correctly invoked.
The court also dismissed the petitioner's assertion of not being present during the mining activity, citing that the activity was conducted for his benefit. The judgment stressed that the trial court should evaluate the chargesheet and determine the merits of the case, as established in previous rulings like Iqbal v. State of U.P.
In conclusion, the court ordered the quashing of FIR sections under the Mining Act while allowing proceedings under IPC sections 379 and 120B. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in differentiating between statutory offences and criminal acts, ensuring that illegal activities like theft are prosecuted under appropriate legal frameworks.
Bottom line:-
FIR under section 21 and 22 of the Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 quashed as cognizance of such offences cannot be taken based on a police report. However, FIR to proceed for offences under Section 379 read with Section 120B IPC.
Statutory provision(s): Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Sections 21, 22; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 379, 120B; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482
Vijay Kumar v. State of H.P., (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2886187
