Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/14334/2026 of S. Ramaiah Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In on 8 October 2026
CRL OP(MD) No. 14334 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 14334 of 2026
and
CRL MP(MD)No.13877 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010911182026}
S. Ramaiah,
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State Of Tamilnadu,
Rep., by the Inspector Of Police,
Thirumayam Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
Crime No. 46 of 2025.
2. Ramasami
S/o. Varadharajan,
Tahsildar,
Thirumayam Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: C-53Q. To call for the entire records pertaining to the Impugned First Information Report in Crime No. 46/2025 dt. 28.03.2025
on the file of the respondent no.1 police station and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.O.R.Gokul
For M/s.Arul Vadivel Associates
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh
Additional Public Prosecutor
(For R1)
__________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:32 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 14334 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed by A1 in Cr.No.46 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeking to quash the FIR, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 21(1), 21(2) and 4(1)(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.
2. The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as per Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, only a complaint procedure has to be followed for registering an FIR under the violation of any one of the provisions of the said Act and in such circumstances, the FIR registered by the police is without jurisdiction and the investigation cannot be continued.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, relying on the counter affidavit contended that the investigation had been conducted and the statements of the witnesses had been recorded. He further submitted that the statements of all the witnesses clearly disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner herein. __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:32 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 14334 of 2026
4. He further submitted that Section 21(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, explicitly makes the offence under section 21(1), a cognizable offence, since the offence is cognizable, the police are fully empowered to register an FIR, investigate the same and file a charge sheet under section 173 of BNS, 2023.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material records of the case.
6. As could be seen from the FIR, the petitioner and the other accused persons are alleged to have committed offences only under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 is extracted as follows:- “22. Cognizance of offences.―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. ” __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:32 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 14334 of 2026
7. As per the above mentioned Section 22, the Court cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except upon a complaint in writing by a person authorised on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government. Therefore, it is clear that only a complaint procedure has to be followed by the competent authorities for lodging a complaint before the competent Court and in such circumstances, no purpose would be served in continuing with the investigation under the present FIR.
8. In such view of the matter, the FIR in Cr.No.46 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent police stands quashed not only as against the petitioner but also as against the other accused persons.
9. Preserving the rights of the respondent police to initiate proceedings under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, the criminal original petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rgm __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:32 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 14334 of 2026 To
1. The Inspector Of Police, Thirumayam Police Station, Pudukkottai District. Crime No. 46 of 2025.
2. Ramasami S/o. Varadharajan, Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:32 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 14334 of 2026 R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. rgm CRL OP(MD) No. 14334 of 2026 08-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:32 pm )