IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7143/2018 BETWEEN:
1. RAMLATH W/O ABDUL RAZAK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT 4-134, BADAKAIBETTU BOLIYA, KOLAVOOR MANGALURU - D.K.-574144 2. MR B RAZAK S/O ABOOBAKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT 4-134, BADAKAIBETTU BOLIYA, KOLAVOOR MANGALURU - D.K. - 574144 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY KARKALA TOWN POLICE UDUPI DISTRICT REP BY SPP.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 2. DR. H S MAHADESHWARA S/O LATE SIDDAYYA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MANGALORE TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-575001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP. FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.21/2018 REGISTERED BY THE KARKALA TOWN POLICE, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 43(2), 43(A), 3(1), 42(1), 44 KMMC RULES 1994 AND SEC.4(1A), 21, 4 OF KARNATAKA MINES AND MINERAL REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT ACT AND SECTION 379 OF IPC ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard.
2. Shri. Dhananjay Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that FIR No.21/2018 has been lodged on 02.02.2018 in Karkala Town Police Station, by respondent no.2 against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Rules 43(2), 43(A), 3(1), 42(1), 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (‘KMMC Rules’ for short), Sections 4(1A), 24 and 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘MMDR Act’ for short) and Section 379 of IPC, 1860. 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 has 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 FIR No.21/2018 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Karkala, Udupi District, are quashed in respect of offences punishable under Rules 43(2), 43(A), 3(1), 42(1), 44 of the KMMC Rules and Sections 4(1A), 24, 4 of the MMDR, insofar as petitioners are concerned. It is made clear that offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC is not quashed.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part.
In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2018 does not survive of consideration and the same is also disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj