Court Upholds Summoning Order, Dismisses Petition, Special Provisions Apply

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the summoning order and finding no illegality. It ruled that the allegations justified a trial, emphasizing that the special provisions of the MMDR Act did not preclude the application of IPC and PMLA. The court cautioned against undue interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that the facts did not warrant intervention at that point.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the impugned order dated 20.05.2021.
2. Alleged violation of mining laws and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
3. Jurisdiction of the Patna High Court and subsequent transfer of the case to Ranchi.
4. Application of special laws versus general laws (IPC) in the context of mining and money laundering.
5. Validity of the summoning order and the application of judicial mind.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Impugned Order Dated 20.05.2021:
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 20.05.2021, which summoned the petitioner and other accused to appear before the court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the cognizance taken by the court was against well-settled provisions of law and was a result of non-application of mind. The petitioner contended that the allegations had already been settled by a previous judgment in the case of Krishnanand Tripathi v. State of Jharkhand, which affirmed the sale/export of iron ore fines and set aside the restrictions imposed by the Government of Jharkhand.

2. Alleged Violation of Mining Laws and PMLA:
The complaint alleged that the petitioner violated its undertaking of captive mining and sold/exported iron ore mined, despite the undertaking. It also alleged that officials violated mining laws, environmental laws, and various rules. However, the impugned complaint only referred to the violation of mining laws and PMLA, dropping allegations related to environmental laws. The petitioner argued that the sale and export of iron ore were within the applicable laws and regulations, and no restrictions were imposed by the State Government at the time. The petitioner also contended that the proceedings under PMLA were initiated mechanically and without application of mind, solely based on the contents of the CBI FIR.

3. Jurisdiction of the Patna High Court and Subsequent Transfer of the Case to Ranchi:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Patna trial court, which led to the Patna High Court quashing the complaint and all proceedings emanating from it. The Patna High Court directed the complaint to be handed over to the appropriate court with jurisdiction, leading to the filing of the present complaint in Ranchi. The petitioner argued that the present complaint was a verbatim reproduction of the Patna ED Complaint, with the addition of an offence.

4. Application of Special Laws versus General Laws (IPC) in the Context of Mining and Money Laundering:
The petitioner argued that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) is a special act and a complete code, and thus, the IPC and other general laws should not apply. The petitioner relied on the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi), which held that when a special law is there, it shall prevail over general and prior laws like IPC. However, the court noted that Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA includes offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC in its schedule, and thus, the authorities concerned are empowered to take action under PMLA.

5. Validity of the Summoning Order and Application of Judicial Mind:
The petitioner contended that the summoning order was a result of non-application of mind and lacked sufficient indication of judicial satisfaction. The petitioner relied on the cases of Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Others and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, which emphasized that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter affecting one's dignity and reputation, and the order must reflect the application of mind. However, the court found that the learned court had discussed the allegations in detail and taken cognizance based on the evidence presented, thus negating the petitioner's argument.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the summoning order. It held that the allegations in the complaint warranted a trial, and the special provisions of the MMDR Act did not bar the application of IPC and PMLA in the present case. The court emphasized that the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be cautious and restrained, and the facts of the case did not warrant interference at this stage.

---