ASHWINI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Pandwa P.S. Case No.36 of 2021 dtd. 30/4/2021 for the offences punishable under Sec. 304 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

(2.) On the limited statement of the informant, the said FIR was registered stating therein that:

(3.) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is the mines agent of Kathuatia Open Cast Coal Mines of Hindalco Industries Limited. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be held liable to vicarious liability in the F.I.R. He further submits that Hindalco Industries Limited (Kathautia Open Cast Mines) is situated in the village Kathautia and presently there are four pits i.e. (a), (b), (c) and (d). Amongst these four pits, Pit (c) is not operational which is situated near Village Bagwanwa. He submits that since the mines is Open Cast Mine, the local people residing nearby village are indulged in illegal mining of coal by the local people. He further submits that M/s Hindalco Industries Limited had erected the fencing wire, caution board and CCTV camera which has been thrown out for the purpose of illegal mining of coal by local people. He submits that in view of the allegations made in the F.I.R., no case under Sec. 304 IPC is made out so far the petitioner is concerned. He further submits that if any action is required that is under the Mines Act as there is special provision for penalty and sentence. He refers to Sec. 5 of the Cr.P.C and submits that this Sec. is crystal clear on the point of any special procedure prescribed by any such law. He further submits that it is well settled that when there is a Special Act, the provisions of the I.P.C will not be applicable. He relied in the case of "Hare Kant Jha v. The State of Jharkhand and Another", 2014 SCC Online Jhar 1560 and refers to paragraph no.8 of the said judgment which is as under: