IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3143/2017 BETWEEN:
LINGARAJU T S/O D. THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE AND POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577541.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNAKATA REP. BY CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522 BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAHA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2017 TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. C.NO.16/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST. AND S.J. , CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 21(1), 4, 4(A) OF THE MMRD ACT AND SECTION 379 R/W 34 OF IPC IN SOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the proceedings pending in Spl.C.No.16/2017 on the file of Principal District And Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(1), 4, 4A of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MMRD Act’ for short) and under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of IPC alleging that petitioner and four others were illegally extracting and transporting sand without having valid license by using the tractor and trolley in question. Petitioner has sought for quashing of said proceedings contending interalia that cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 21(1), 4, 4A of MMRD Act could not have been taken by the learned trial Judge on the basis of a police report and a private complaint ought to have been filed by the concerned authority as prescribed under Section 22 of the Act. It is also urged that for offences under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC cognizance has been taken and only on the ground that offences under MMRD Act is also there. Learned Sessions Judge could not have taken cognizance and as such they have prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.02.2017 whereunder learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 21(1), 4, 4A of MMRD Act and Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF NCT OF DELHI vs SANJAY AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2015 SC 75 has held where offences are punishable under the M.M.R.D. Act and Rules made thereunder, no Court can take cognizance of such offence unless an authorized officer files a complaint under Section 22 of the Act and in the event of cognizance having been taken on the basis of a Police report such proceedings cannot be continued as it would be an illegality. In these circumstances, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that such proceedings are liable to be quashed, inasmuch as accused cannot be made to face the ordeal of trial, since the jurisdictional Magistrate would have no power to take cognizance and convict the accused on the basis of a Police report.
3. Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, Co-ordinate Benches of this Court has consistently held that proceedings initiated on the basis of a Police report for the offences punishable under the MMRD Act and the Rules made thereunder cannot be sustained and as such, has quashed the proceedings in W.P.No.54390/2017, Criminal Petition No.9358/2017 and Criminal Petition No.307/2018 disposed of on 01.02.2018, 04.12.2017 and 19.03.2018 respectively. As such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in the instant case for the offences punishable under the MMRD Act and the Rules made thereunder cannot be allowed to continue as it would be an abuse of process of law. However, liberty is to be reserved to the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka, to initiate appropriate proceedings against petitioner in terms of Section 22 of the MMRD Act.
4. In the light of aforestated position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court continuation of proceedings insofar as offences under Section 21(1), 4, 4A of MMRD Act is concerned, is liable to be quashed, since complaint is not filed by the concerned authority as prescribed under Section 22 of the Act. However, proceedings initiated against petitioner for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code deserves to be continued and as such said prayer cannot be granted.
5. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Criminal petition is allowed in part.
Proceedings pending against petitioner in Spl.C.No.16/2017 on the file of Principal District And Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(1), 4, 4A of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is quashed to the said extent only.
(2) It is made clear that Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under MMRD Act. However, proceedings pending in said Spl.C.No.16/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of IPC shall be proceeded with in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE DR/RU