Allegations Warrant Investigation By Police: Kerala HC In Case Wherein Accused Allegedly Quarried Granite Stones Outside Quarry Area
The Kerala High Court in a case wherein the accused was alleged to have quarried granite stones from outside the quarry area said that the allegations in the complaint warrant an investigation by the police.
A Single Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V held, “Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the bar, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations in the complaint warrant an investigation by the police going by the principles laid down in Femeena (supra).”
The Bench was deciding a case in which the petitioner approached the Court challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.
Advocates Anand Kalyanakrishnan and C. Dheeraj Rajan appeared for the petitioner while Sr. PP Vipin Narayan and Advocate Enoch David Simon Joel appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC.), seeking initiation of prosecution proceeding under Section 379 and Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act). In his complaint, he alleged that the accused in the complaint was running a quarry in the name and style of M/s Petra Crusher at Vallyentha, Elamkadu, on the land owned and possessed by the accused.
The aforesaid quarry was functioning on the strength of a lease agreement and the specific case of the petitioner was that in terms of the lease agreement, the accused was permitted only to operate a quarry within a stipulated area. His grievance was that the accused quarried granite stones from outside the quarry area. He gave details of the quantum of granite stones quarried by the accused in excess of the agreement and the permissible limit and it was contended that quarrying of granite outside the permissible limits would amount to an offence under Section 379 of the IPC.
The High Court in the above context of the matter observed, “… it is argued that the test to be applied while considering the question of whether a complaint is to be preferred to Police for investigation is the need for Police investigation. In the case on hand, the need for the Police investigation is clearly made out, states the learned counsel.”
The Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection to setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate as, according to him, the allegations in the complaint call for an investigation by the police.
“I have also taken note of the observations of this Court in Shybi C.J. v. State of Kerala and Ors. [2021 KHC 275], wherein this Court had held that extracting granites in excess of permissible quantity would amount to theft”, said the Court.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law.
Cause Title- Dotty Shiby v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KER:43711)
