Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Suleman Khan, filed a criminal writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the FIR dated 26.05.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 514 of 2022 at Police Station Powayan, District Shahjahanpur. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/57/7 of the Uttar Pradesh Sub Mineral (Concession) Manual, 1963, and Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, relating to alleged illegal mining activities.

The petitioner also sought protection from arrest, contending that the police were attempting to harass him.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the High Court should quash the FIR relating to alleged illegal mining in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to protection from arrest through a writ petition.
  3. Whether disputed factual issues regarding the legality of transportation of minerals could be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The FIR was liable to be quashed.
  • The petitioner sought a direction restraining the police from arresting or harassing him.
  • It was submitted that the petitioner possessed a GST invoice evidencing purchase of sand (reta) and had made payment for the same.
  • The petitioner also relied upon supporting transport-related documents to demonstrate that the material being transported was legally purchased.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The State opposed the writ petition.
  • The prosecution maintained that the FIR disclosed allegations of illegal mining and transportation of minerals, requiring investigation.
  • It was contended that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact which could not be decided in writ jurisdiction.

Court Order / Findings

The Allahabad High Court observed that the petitioner appeared to be under the misconception that a writ petition could be used as a substitute for seeking anticipatory protection from arrest.

The Court held that:

  • The case involved several disputed questions of fact, including whether the minerals were illegally mined or lawfully purchased.
  • Since the petitioner claimed to possess GST invoices and transport documents, these factual aspects could appropriately be considered by the competent criminal court while deciding his bail application.
  • Such disputed factual controversies cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition without quashing the FIR and observed that the appropriate court would consider the petitioner's documents while deciding any application for bail.

Important Clarification

  • A writ petition under Article 226 is not a substitute for anticipatory bail or regular bail proceedings.
  • Where allegations involve disputed questions of fact, particularly in criminal investigations concerning illegal mining, the High Court ordinarily refrains from evaluating evidence in writ jurisdiction.
  • Documents such as GST invoices, transport records, or purchase documents may be considered by the competent criminal court while deciding the accused's bail application but do not automatically justify quashing of the FIR.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Sections 379 and 411, Indian Penal Code
  • Sections 4 and 21, Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957
  • Sections 3/57/7, Uttar Pradesh Sub Mineral (Concession) Manual, 1963

Link to Download the Order-https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785325653_2265compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.