J.R. Chopra, J. - (1.) MR . Ojha has filed an affidavit. The contention of the petitioner is that salt petre Minor Mineral has been excavated by him and has been taken from his possession in pursuance of a case registered on a FIR. He, therefore, submits that this Mineral should be delivered to him. Mr. S.N. Sharma has submitted that as per Rule 4(5) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 no mineral excavation can be done in the Abadi area. According to the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, this Minor mineral has been excavated from the Abadi area and, therefore, this mineral cannot be handed over from the possession of the petitioner.
(2.) I have considered the rival submission made at the bar. The learned lower Court has ordered that this minor mineral be auctioned. This does not appear to be proper in the facts & circumstances of the case. It is alleged that this minor mineral which has been taken into possession. Costs near about Rs. 50000/ - & therefore, it is ordered that if the petitioner furnishes a solvent security of Rs. 60000/ - to the satisfaction of learned J.M. No. 1, Hanumangarh the salt petre taken into possession in FIR Case No. 108/89 be released in favour of the petitioner. The next contention of the petitioner is to quash the FIR lodged by the petitioner. I don't feel inclined to quash the FIR. This is a right of every complainant to file a complaint and that right cannot be abridged and, therefore, to this extent, the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable. With these aforesaid directions, this Misc. Petition stands disposed of accordingly on merits.;