Quarrying Outside Permissible Limits Warrants Police Investigation For Theft: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently took the view that police investigation is necessary in a case involving quarrying of granite stones outside the permissible limits of the quarry area. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. set aside the order of the Magistrate which had held that no police investigation was required in the matter, and thereby directed it to reconsider the issue in light of the principles laid down in Femeena E. v. State of Kerala (2023). In the said case, the Court had laid down that the test to be applied, while considering the question whether a complaint is to be referred to the Police for investigation, is the 'need for Police investigation', which in turn would depend upon the nature of the allegations. 

The petitioner in this case filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the initiation of proceedings under Sections 379 ('Punishment for theft') and Section 414 ('Assisting in concealment of stolen property') of IPC. It was averred that the accused, who was running a quarry under a lease agreement dated March 20, 2012, was quarrying granite stones from outside the quarry area. 

Advocates Anand Kalyanakrishnan and C. Dheeraj Rajan submitted on behalf of the petitioner that quarrying of granite outside the permissible limits would amount to an offence under section 379 IPC. It was thus contended that a proper investigation with the assistance of officers from the Geology Department would be required in the present case.

The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally, however, rejected the prayer, noting that the allegations and averments in the complaint did not warrant an investigation by the police. 

Before the High Court, the Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan did not object to the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner, and added that the allegations in the complaint warranted investigation by the police. 

The Court thereby set aside the Magistrate's Order and directed the latter to reconsider the issue. 

Advocates Enoch David Simon Joel, S. Sreedev, Rony Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, and Derick Mathai Saji also appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Case Title: Dotty Shiby v. State of Kerala & Anr. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 367 

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 4280 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Order