TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.12 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Madurai, which is now pending on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. 2 M.S. Granites (A.4) and Sri Aiswariya Rock Export (A.3) are into the business of granite mining. Shankaranarayanan (A.1) and Selvam (A.2) are the partners in Sri Aiswariya Rock Export (A.3). Shankaranarayanan is the Proprietor of M.S. Granites (A.4). They were given licence to mine in specified areas by the State Government. But, it is alleged that they started quarrying illegally in Government lands which were not allotted to them. 3 In this connection, three FIRs, viz., Keelakalavu P.S. Cr.Nos.187 and 196 of 2012 and Cr.No.12 of 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai area. He further submitted that when the report submitted by Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. itself has not been disclosed or made public and when the said report is also being contested by the licencees, the foundation for the present prosecution under the PML Act is weak. We are unable to subscribe to this submission, because, the FIRs have been registered based on the complaints given by the Revenue officials and not merely based on the report of Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. Further, the registration of an FIR can trigger an investigation under the PML Act, if the FIR discloses the commission of a schedule offence under the said Act. In fact, in this case, final report (charge sheet) has been filed in Cr.No.196 of 2012 on 19.08.2013 based on the materials....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal Vs. C.B.I. (2015) 4 SCC 609 This contention, which is being raised at the Bar time and again, has been adequately answered by this Bench very recently in M. Suresh Khatri vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai - 6 Crl.O.P.No.20127 of 2018 in the following words: "22 In criminal law, the principle of stare decisis cannot be mechanically applied. In Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), the CBI had filed a charge sheet against Bharti Cellular Ltd. and other telecom companies and one Shyamal Ghosh. While taking cognizance, the Special Judge added Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharti Cellular Ltd. and issued process to him. This was the subject matter of the challenge before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went into ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sclosed in the charge sheet. Similarly, in Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others [(2015) 12 SCC 420], the Supreme Court dealt with a private complaint for defamation. It may be pertinent to extract paragraph 21 of the said judgment : "21. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)( a ) CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that "a complaint of facts which constitute such offence". Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 1....