CRL OP(MD)/10217/2026 of Suji Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep B on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.125 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police, seeking to quash the said FIR, which has been registered for the alleged offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

2. The case of the prosecution, as could be culled out from the FIR, is that on 10.04.2026 at about 7.30 p.m., while the police party was on patrol duty, they noticed that rock stones were being broken in the Government poramboke land and in the patta lands adjoining the said poramboke land, and were being carted away in tractors without obtaining any permission from the Government. On seeing the police party, the persons present at the spot fled from the scene, abandoning three two-wheelers, two excavators and a tractor.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that one Mr.George Stephen was issued with a work order by the Executive Officer, Keezhkulam Town Panchayat, for the construction of a Primary Health Centre in Survey No.374/1. Since the site was a rocky terrain, the said contractor had applied to the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Kanyakumari District, and had obtained a permission order dated 14.03.2026 for cutting and removing the rocks so as to facilitate the construction of the Primary Health Centre.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is only a transport contractor engaged by the said building contractor for the removal of the rock stones. When the competent authority had granted permission to cut and remove the rocks for the construction of the Primary Health Centre, the police cannot wrongfully brand the said activity as theft of minerals.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the orders of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19885 of 2025 (Devanandh Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, Madurai District and another) and Crl.O.P. (MD) No.20483 of 2025 (Dhas Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kotticode Police Station, Kanyakumari District and another).

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police submitted that the permission granted by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining on 14.03.2026 was only for a period of 28 days, i.e., from 14.03.2026 to 10.04.2026. As per the terms of the said permission order, the operations were to be carried out only between 7.00 a.m.

and 5.00 p.m. Consequently, the right of the contractor to cut and remove the rocks came to an end at 5.00 p.m. on 10.04.2026. However, when the police patrol party visited the site at 7.30 p.m. on the very same day, the rocks were found being cut and removed, which would squarely amount to theft of minerals belonging to the Government. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the role played by the petitioner is a matter for investigation, that the investigation is only at a nascent stage, and therefore prayed for the dismissal of this petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that the vehicles of the petitioner were found at the scene of occurrence when the police patrol party visited the spot at 7.30 p.m. on 10.04.2026. Admittedly, the permission granted by the competent authority to cut and remove the rocks had expired at 5.00 p.m. on 10.04.2026 itself. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the contractor was armed with a valid permission from the competent authority at the relevant point of time cannot be countenanced.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is only a transport contractor and, as such, he could not have had knowledge as to whether the period of permission had expired or not. Whether the petitioner was aware of the expiry of the permission period is a matter which has to be unearthed during the course of investigation. It is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a petition seeking to quash the FIR.

10. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that, even assuming that the mining operations were being carried on at 7.30 p.m., the same would at best amount to a violation of the time stipulation, which may attract only the provisions of the MMDR Act, and that Section 303(2) of BNS cannot be invoked. As already noticed, the permission granted to the contractor, Mr.George Stephen, had expired at 5.00 p.m. on 10.04.2026. Hence, this is not a case of a mere violation of the time stipulated in the permission order; on the contrary, the mining operations had been continued even after the permission had lapsed. Therefore, this contention does not merit acceptance.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the FIR does not specify the quantity or the value of the minerals, and hence the offence under Section 303(2) of BNS is not attracted. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. As per the allegations, two excavators and a tractor were found at the scene of occurrence, and the investigation is only at a nascent stage. The FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the quantity and value of the minerals have not been mentioned therein. Even the act of breaking the rocks, if proved, would attract the provisions of Section 303(2) of BNS, notwithstanding the fact that the minerals were not moved outside the survey number.

12. The learned counsel relied upon the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19885 of 2025, wherein it was held that the transportation of minerals without a valid permit would not attract the offence of theft. A reading of the said order would show that it was a case where a quarry owner, who held a valid permission to quarry, had transported the minerals without a valid transport permit. In the case on hand, however, the permission granted to the contractor had expired at 5.00 p.m. on 10.04.2026, and the offence is alleged to have been committed at 7.30 p.m. on the same day. Hence, the said decision is distinguishable on facts and does not come to the aid of the petitioner.

13. The petitioner also relied upon the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20483 of 2025. In that case, the petitioner therein held a valid registration certificate for storing, processing and consuming rough stone, jelly, crushed M- sand and B-sand in the patta land belonging to him, and on those facts, this Court held that the removal of minerals from his own possession would not amount to theft. In the present case, the rocks are admittedly situated in Government poramboke land, in respect of which permission had been granted only for cutting and removing the rocks to facilitate the construction of the Primary Health Centre. Therefore, the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out any ground warranting interference with the investigation, and no case is made out for quashing the FIR. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No msa To

1. The Inspector of Police Puthukadai Police Station Kanyakumari District Crime No.125 of 2026

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J. msa CRL OP(MD) No. 10217 of 2026 and CRL MP(MD) No. 10211 of 2026 13.10.2026