IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1263/2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KESHAVA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT URUGUTTI VILLAGE SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI SOMWARPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 34.
2. NAMI @ NIMRAJ H.S S/O SOMEGOWDA HENLI ARDAGERE VILLAGE YESLUR HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 34.
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C.,ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE YESLURU POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED IN C.C.NO.156/2018 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SAKALESHPURA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are before this Court for quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.156/2018 before Additional Civil Judge &JMFC, Sakaleshpura which is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1A) and 21 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under Section 31(r) of The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and under Section 379 of IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.156/2018 and jurisdictional Magistrate has passed committal orders and accordingly, case came to be committed to Sessions Court.
3. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that in the light of bar contained under Section 22 of MMDR Act, learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences under MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder. Hence, by replying upon order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.9358/2017 he prays for quashing of the proceedings in respect of offences under MMDR Act for which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance.
4. Per contra Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP would support the case of prosecution.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the case papers it emerges there from that accused persons have been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable both under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as well as under provisions of Indian Penal Code. In so far as allegations regarding violation of provisions of MMDR Act is concerned, there cannot be any dispute to the proposition that if offences committed under the said Act, a complaint is required to be filed under Section 22 of the MMDR Act by the competent or concerned officer and in the absence of such complaint being lodged, proceedings cannot be proceeded with on the basis of a complaint lodged before jurisdictional police. This proposition also receives support from the dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NCT of Delhi V/s. Sanjay reported in AIR 2015 SC 75.
6. In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, when facts on hand are examined, it would indicate that undisputedly there was no complaint filed by the competent officers of Department of Mines as prescribed under Section 22 of MMDR Act. Further, the jurisdictional Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence based on a FIR registered by the jurisdictional police which relates to both the offences viz., offence under MMDR Act and also under the provisions of IPC. As such, proceedings now pending before jurisdictional Magistrate for the offence punishable under MMDR Act cannot be allowed to be continued. However, proceeding under provisions of IPC can be continued and jurisdictional Magistrate is empowered to proceed with trial.
7. Hence, reserving liberty to the department of Mines and Geology to file appropriate complaint if so advised before the jurisdictional Court for the offences under MMDR Act and Rules made therein, proceedings now pending before Jurisdictional Court for offences under MMDR Act deserves to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Criminal petition is allowed in part.
(2) Proceedings pending in C.C.No.156/2018 against accused on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura for the offences punishable under Section 4(1A) and 21 of Act is quashed and petitioners are acquitted of said offences and liberty is granted to Department of Mines, to proceed against petitioner as observed herein above.
(3) Proceedings pending against petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC shall be proceeded in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE RU