The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the registration of a First Information Report and subsequent prosecution in a sand theft case was a clear abuse of the process of law where the police mechanically registered the case without obtaining requisite judicial authorisation, recognising the legal parameters for cognizability of offences and the procedural safeguards under the criminal justice statutes. A single judge of the High Court, presiding over a criminal petition filed by a man accused of theft of sand, scrutinised the factual and legal backdrop of the case. The petitioner had been charged in connection with alleged theft of sand valued at a modest amount, and the police had registered an FIR invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, without having obtained prior direction from a Magistrate. Under the new criminal law, as defined in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, theft of property below a specified monetary threshold is categorised as a non-cognizable offence, requiring judicial permission before police can proceed to investigate and file a charge-sheet. In this instance, the police failed to secure such sanction and proceeded directly to investigate and complete the charge-sheet, a procedure which the High Court found incompatible with the statutory scheme governing non-cognizable offences.
The petitioner contended before the High Court that the sand allegedly carried in a tractor-trailer belonged to property of limited value, and that the worth was neither specified in the original complaint nor reflected in the charge-sheet in a manner compliant with law. He argued that under the relevant statutory provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, an offence involving theft of property valued below a statutory threshold was not cognizable, meaning that the police did not have the authority to conduct an investigation in the absence of a Magistrate’s direction. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that the offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 could only be taken cognizance of upon written complaint by an authorised officer of the mining department, a requirement he asserted was overlooked by the investigating agency. He emphasised that these procedural and statutory safeguards were designed to prevent arbitrary or unjustified use of criminal law, particularly in matters where recovery of property and assessment of value were central to the legal characterisation of the act in question.
In response, the State contended that the value of the sand, as per an official tahsildar’s report, was modest but nonetheless constituted an offence under both the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the MMDR Act. The State maintained that the police had acted within the ambit of their powers and that subsequent investigation and the filing of a charge-sheet were justified in light of the factual matrix. It was argued that any procedural misstep, if it occurred, did not significantly prejudice the prosecution’s ability to establish guilt, and that compliance with statutory obligations should be viewed in the context of substantive justice and enforcement of laws against illegal extraction and transportation of minerals.
After analysing the submissions, the High Court emphasised the legal significance of categorisation of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court observed that where an alleged act constitutes a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot unilaterally register an FIR and initiate investigation. Instead, they are obliged to secure appropriate direction from a Magistrate under the statutory provision governing non-cognizable offences and the procedure for investigation, thereby ensuring that investigatory powers are exercised within constitutional and legal boundaries. In holding that the value of the allegedly stolen sand placed the case within the non-cognizable category, the Court underscored that the police’s failure to obtain Magistrate’s direction was a substantial procedural violation that tainted the entire prosecution. The Court described the mechanical registration of the FIR and the subsequent investigation as an abuse of the process of law, noting that such practices undermine legal safeguards and can result in unnecessary harassment of citizens.
The High Court also examined the procedural requisites under the MMDR Act, observing that the statutory scheme mandates that no court shall take cognizance of offences under the Act except on a written complaint by an authorised officer from the mining department. This requirement reflects legislative intent to ensure that specialised regulatory offences are initiated only by appropriate agencies with subject-matter expertise and official authorisation. The Court found that this statutory safeguard was not respected in the present case, thereby compounding the procedural infirmities and strengthening the petitioner’s plea for quashing of proceedings.
In light of these findings, the High Court allowed the criminal petition, quashing the FIR, the charges and all proceedings arising from the impugned registration. The Court made it clear that the quashing of the case did not preclude the competent authority under the MMDR Act from initiating appropriate action in accordance with law, such as pursuing regulatory or civil remedies, but that criminal prosecution could not proceed on the basis of an improperly registered FIR that violated mandatory procedural requirements. By setting aside the proceedings, the High Court reaffirmed the principle that procedural compliance is integral to fair administration of criminal justice and that courts must intervene where statutory safeguards are disregarded in a manner that results in abuse of prosecutorial powers.
The High Court’s decision thus underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural norms when invoking criminal law, particularly in cases involving non-cognizable offences and specialised statutes like the MMDR Act. It reflects a broader jurisprudential trend emphasising the protection of citizens from arbitrary or disproportionate use of criminal process, and the necessity of judicial oversight to ensure that investigatory and prosecutorial actions are grounded in statutory authority rather than expediency. The judgment highlights that adherence to procedural mandates — such as obtaining Magistrate’s direction before registering an FIR for non-cognizable offences and ensuring that complaints under specialist legislation are filed by authorised persons — is not merely technical but foundational to safeguarding individual rights and upholding the rule of law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.