KRISHNA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D.N. Upadhyay, J. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. and entire criminal proceedings arising out of Titisilwai P.S. Case No.05 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.468 of 2014 registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 12 & 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 2004').

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that on 24.01.2014 after receiving a secret information that illegal mining and transportation of sand is going on, the police party led by informant put a vigil on the road at Bank More within P.S. Tatisilwai. In course of checking the vehicles, truck bearing registration no.BR 140092 and JHO IU3374 loaded with sand were apprehended. The drivers of aforesaid trucks were directed to produce documents against transportation of sand but they failed to do so and admitted that sand is being transported on those trucks at the instruction of owner of the trucks. The writ petitioner happens to be owner of truck bearing no.BR 140092. Both the drivers failed to produce even their driving licence and said that driving licence have been deposited with the owner of the truck. Since no document against transportation of sand was produced the informant, who happens to be OfficerinCharge of Tatisilwai Police Station, recorded his selfstatement and registered Ranchi Sadar, Tatisilwai P.S. Case No.05 dated 24.01.2014 under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 12 & 54 of the Rules, 2004 and investigation was handed over to SubInspector Baleshwar Prasad.

(3.) It is contended that OfficerinCharge of a police station has no authority to institute a case punishable under the provision of the Rules, 2. 2004. Only an authorised person as indicated under the Rules 57 of said Rules, 2004 is empowered to lodge information either with the police or to file a complaint in writing before a Court having jurisdiction to take cognizance. Where special law is applicable general provision of Indian Penal Code shall not apply. Furthermore, the petitioner happens to be owner of truck bearing registration no.BR 140092 and he was not accompanying with the truck at the time of its seizure. Only because he is the owner of said truck, he has been made accused. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment 2013 2 JCR 275 (Jhr.), BHOTNA MAHTO v. STATE OF JHARKHAND, 2009 1 JCR 702 , 2009 4 JCR 303, PANCHAM SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND, GYANI PRASAD BHAGAT, 2013 1 JCR 535.