Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chakulia (Shyam Sunderpur) P.S. Case No. 22 of 2014, which has been registered for the offences under sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code as also Rule 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The prosecution story as would appear from the FIR instituted by the Circle Officer, Chakulia is that in course of inspection, three vehicles bearing registration No. UR 28B -2659, JH05 -AA -7749 and U.K. 8268 were found loaded with sand. On being queried, the driver could not produce any valid document to substantiate the transportation of sand.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the First Information Report could not be registered under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code as the special law on the subject i.e. the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act as well as the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules will override the provisions of the general law. With respect to the institution of the FIR under the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant of the present case is the Circle Officer, Chakulia and he being not an authorized officer as envisaged under the provisions of MMDR Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the FIR so far as it relates to offences under the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules is concerned, is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Sections 379 & 411 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since none of the ingredients of theft as defined in Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code is fulfilled and therefore he submits that the entire criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner should not be allowed to continue as continuance of the same would be an abuse of the process of law.;