Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Manoj, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 July, 2025
1
APHC010150652021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2373/2021
Between:
1. MANOJ, S/O RAJASEKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC- DRIVER,
CASTE- LINGAYATH, BHATUNBRA VILLAGE, BHALKI TALUKA,
BHIDAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA DISTRICT.
2. GADDAM HEMANTH KUMAR,, S/O.PARANDAMAIAH, AGED 34
YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O..MARTUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.
3. SHAIK BASHA,, S/O MASTAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, CASTE-
MUSLIM, OCC- LABOUR, QUARYGUNTA, MARTUR VILLAGE,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI.
2. MR M V SIVA KUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARTUR P.S.,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19731 has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment
of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.572 of 2020 on the file of the Court of
1 for short ‘Cr.P.C‘
2
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, Prakasam District for the
offences under Sections 420 and 353 IPC and Section 21(4) of MMDR Act.
2. At the time of hearing, Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the
Petitioners would submit that, this matter is squarely covered by the Order
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Poundri Srinu @ Kota Srinivasa
Rao vs. State of A.P and another in Crl.P.No.6591 of 2019, dated 03.02.2025,
wherein, it was held as follows:
“9. It is relevant to extract Section 21(1) and 22 of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
21. Penalties:-Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-
section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees per hectare of the area.
22. Cognizance of offences: No court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any
rules made there under except upon complaint in writing
made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central
Government or the State Government.
10. A perusal of the provisions of the sections extracted, envisages that
no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act
or any rules made thereunder, except upon complaint in writing made by
a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the
State Government. In answer to the said aspect, it is relevant to refer
Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the Rules, defines authorized officer, which means
an officer in a rank below Group B, authorized by the State Government
or the Commissioner or the Director of Mines and Geology or Deputy
Commissioner of the District to act for this specific purpose under this
rule.
11. According to the sald Rule, it makes clear that the Police have no
authority to entertain a complaint under the Act unless a complaint in
writing is made by the persons authorized under Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the
Rules. The Police even have not stated that they are authorized persons
under the Rule nor they accompanied any authorization entitling them to
file a complaint. In the absence of compliance of mandatory provisions
that have to be followed and as there is no material on record, except
confessional statement of A1, to show that the petitioners herein are
indulged in transporting illegal granite, continuation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of
law and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
3
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in
Crime No.129 of 2019 of Santhamagulur Police Station, Prakasam
District, initiated against the petitioner/proposed accused is hereby
quashed.”
3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly
conceded that it is a covered order.
4. Hence, in view of the Order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Crl.P.No.6591 of 2019, dated 03.02.2025, and taking into consideration of the
facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal petition is allowed quashing
the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.572 of
2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Addanki, Prakasam District for the offences under Sections 420 and 353 IPC and
Section 21(4) of MMDR Act, 2006.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:28.07.2025
Dinesh
4
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.P.No.2373 of 2021
Dt.28.07.2025
Dinesh
[ad_1]
Source link