JOSE PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL . M.C. No. 2956/2014 was filed by the 4th accused in C.C. No. 621/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, while Crl. M.C. No. 3140/2014 was filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the same case, both for quashing the proceedings as against them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ' the Code').

(2.) THE common case of the petitioners in both these cases was that the 1st accused is having a property in R.Sy. No. 175/11 of Kottangal village and the third accused is the owner of the property in R.Sy. No. 175/3 of Kottangal village and 2nd and 4th accused are conducting quarrying operation in the properties belonging to accused 1 and 3 respectively independently. The case of the prosecution was that they were conducting quarrying operations in the properties in violation of the prohibitory order issued by the Tahsildar, who is the defacto complainant and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. Accused 1 and 3, who are petitioners 1 and 3 in Crl. M.C. No. 3140/2014, are the owners of the properties in R.Sy. Nos. 175/11 and 175/3 of Kottangal village respectively. The second petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3140/2014, who is the second accused, is conducting quarrying operation in the property belonging to the first accused after obtaining necessary licences and permits evidenced by Annexures -3 to 6 documents produced by him in that case. The 4th accused in the same case, who is the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 2956/2014, is conducting quarrying operation in the property of the third accused, who is the third petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3140/2014 after obtaining necessary licenses evidenced by Annexures -3 to 7 documents produced along with the petition filed by him. There is no dispute that they are having valid documents. Since the defacto complainant, Tahsildar, found that mining operations are being conducted in the properties in violation of the prohibitory order issued, he had sent Annexure -1(8) complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Perumpetty, on the basis of which, Annexure -1 First Information Report was registered as Crime No. 189/2011 of Perumpetty police station of Pathanamthitta district against the petitioners in both the cases arraying them as accused 1 to 4 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosive Act. After investigation, Annexure -4 final report was filed against the petitioners in both the cases alleging commission of the above said offence, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 621/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. Annexure -7 in Crl. M.C. No. 3140/2014 and Annexure -8 in Crl. M.C. No. 2956/2014 were produced by the petitioners in the respective cases to prove that prohibitory orders have been passed in respect of functioning of quarry in R.Sy. No. 175/1 of Block No. 32 of Kottangal village alone and such notice has been issued to one Aneesh Ismail. It was also alleged in both the petitions that they have not received any notice or order prohibiting quarrying in that resurvey number. Further it was alleged in the petition that the defacto complainant wanted to register a case only under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules alone and no offence under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act was made out in the complaint. So, according to them, no offence under the above said section has been committed or made out and continuing to proceed with the case will amount to an abuse of process of court. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) AS directed by this Court regarding the prohibitory order issued in respect of the above property and as instructed by the office of the Advocate General, the Tahsildar, Mallappally issued a letter dated 21.7.2014 stating that there was no prohibitory order issued against functioning of quarry in Block No. 32 in R.Sy. No. 175/3 of Kottangal village, but as per the directions of this Court in W.P. (C). No. 5452/2010, the Village Officer had issued a prohibitory order against functioning of the quarry in Block No. 32 in R.Sy. No. 175/11 of Kottangal village and that letter was produced by the learned Public Prosecutor along with the memo.