IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.10165 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. P ABDUL KUNHI S/O MOHAMMAD HAAJI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUNDIKAI HOUSE, ISWARAMANGALA POST, PADAVANNURU VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNDA-574 201 2. BHARATH @ BHARTHESH RAI .M S/O ANANTHA RAI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOODAYOORU HOUSE PADUVANNURU VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNDA-574 201 ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. RAJASHEKAR .S, ADV. ) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTURU RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 4TH FLOOR, MINERAL HOUSE, HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575005. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP ) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1237/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, PUTTUR D.K., MANGLAORE AND ETC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard.
2. Shri Rajashekar .S, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that on the basis of complaint lodged by second respondent-complainant against the petitioners, FIR No.156/2014 has been registered on 09.10.2014 in Putturu Rural Police Station, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4 (1A), 21(A) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulations Act, 1957 (‘MMDR Act’ for short) and Rules 3(1), 42, 43 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Section 379 r/w 34 IPC. After investigation, the police have filed charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4 (1A), 21(A) of the MMDR Act, and Rules 3(1), 42, 43 and 44 of the KMMC Rules and Sections 109 and 379 r/w 34 IPC. So far as the offences punishable under the provisions of KMMC Rules and MMDR Act are concerned, the authorities under the said Rules and Act have to file a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and registration of FIR is impermissible.
3. The submission of learned advocate for the petitioners is not disputed by the learned HCGP.
4. This Court has taken a consistent view that registration of FIR is not permissible in respect of offences under the KMMC Rules and MMDR Act are concerned. [See Saiyed Jiyaulla and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another (Crl.P.No.4250/2018 decided on 28.06.2018) ].
5. In the circumstances, following the said decision, proceedings in C.C.No.1237/2015 (FIR No. 156/2014) pending on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur, D.K., Mangalore, are quashed in respect of offences punishable under Rules 3(1), 42, 43 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1994 and Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21(A) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957, so far as petitioners are concerned. It is made clear that offences punishable under Sections 109 and 379 r/w 34 IPC, are not quashed.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-