Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/765/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 765 of 2008
=========================================================
KARAMSINHBHAI
VALIBHAI KAROSANA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRYJPATEL
for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH,
APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 03/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
the learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner
has challenged the validity of complaint bearing C.R.No.II-3026 of
2008 of Limbdi Police Station as at Annexure A. The petition is
pressed mainly on the ground that the FIR is for offences under the
Mines and Minerals Act and no cognizance of FIR therefore can be
taken and only upon a complaint before the Magistrate cognizance of
such offence can be taken. However, the issue was considered at
length by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.5230 of 2010
and connected matters decided on 3rd September 2010 in
which following conclusions have been arrived at :
“1.
Section 22 of the Act does not prohibit registering an FIR by the
police on information being given with respect to offences
punishable under
the said Act or the Rules made thereunder,
2. It
is, however, not open for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the
offence punishable under the Act or the Rules made thereunder on a
mere chargesheet filed by the police. It would, however, be open
for the officer authorized by the State or the Central Government
in this behalf to file a complaint in writing before the Magistrate
relying upon the investigation carried out by the police and the
compliant may also include the papers of police investigation.
3. With
respect to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, no such
bar as indicated in
para (2) would apply.”
In
view of the above conclusions, the contention that the FIR is not
maintainable is turned down. However, steps subsequent to filing of
FIR as clarified and detailed in the above order shall be followed
by the Investigating Agency.
With
the above observations, the petition is disposed. Rule is
discharged. Interim is vacated.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top