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

The Kerala High Court in the case Dotty Shiby v. State of Kerala & Anr observed and is of the view that the police investigation is necessary in the case which involves quarrying of granite stones outside the permissible limits of the quarry area.
The Single Judge bench headed by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. in the case observed and has set aside the order of the Magistrate wherein the court held that no police investigation was being required in the said matter and the court in the case directed to reconsider the issue in light of the principles laid down in Femeena E. v. State of Kerala, 2023.
Further, the court in the case observed and has laid down that the test to be applied, while considering the question that whether a complaint is to be referred to the Police for investigation, is the ‘need for Police investigation’, thus, which in turn would depend upon the nature of the allegations.
In the present case, the petitioner filed the complaint as stated under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the initiation of proceedings which are initiated under section Sections 379, the Punishment for theft and section 414, the Assisting in concealment of stolen property of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It has also been averred before the court that the acuused, who in the case running a quarry under a lease agreement dated 20.03.2012, was quarrying granite stones from outside the quarry area.
The counsel, Advocate Anand Kalyanakrishnan and Advocate C. Dheeraj Rajan submitted before the court on behalf of the petitioner that quarrying of granite outside the permissible limits would amount to an offence as stated under section 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It has also been contended before the court that a proper investigation with the assistance of officers from the Geology Department would be required in the present case.
However, the prayer was rejected by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally wherein the court noted that the allegations and the averments in the complaint did not warrant an investigation by the police.
Therefore, the counsel, Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan did not object to the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner and it has been added that the allegations in the complaint warranted investigation by the police.
Accordingly, the court set aside the order of the Magistrate and has directed the latter to reconsider the said issue.
The counsels, 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.