IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3948 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K. ASHOKA S/O LATE G. KRISHNASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 90 BANNERGHATTA BANGLAORE-560 083 2. SMT. SEETHA LAKSHMI W/O SRI. K. ASHOKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 90 BANNERGHATTA BANGLAORE-560 083 … PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KUSUMA R. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION BANGALORE RURAL DIST BANGALORE-560 083 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BANGALORE 2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 13TH FLOOR, V.V. CENTRE DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE URBAN DIST BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.71/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.4(1),4(1A),22 OF MMRD ACT AND RULE.42,3,44,43 OF KARNATAKA MINES AND MINERALS CONSESSION RULE AND SEC.379 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard.
2. Smt. Kusuma R.Prasad, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that FIR No.71/2018 has been lodged on 26.03.2018 in Bannerghatta Police Station, by the Senior Geologist against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Rules 42, 3, 44, 43 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (‘KMMC Rules’ for short; Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 22 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 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 FIR No.71/2018 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Anekal, are quashed in respect of offences punishable under Rules 42, 3, 44, 43 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 so far 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.
No costs.
Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE