IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9739 OF 2018 Between:
1. Sri. M. Devendraiah S/o Maheshwaraiah Aged about 52 years R/at. H. Basavapura Huchavanahalli post-577534 Mayakinda Hobli Davanagere Taluk & District.
2. Sri. Shankaragowda M.R. S/o Rudrappa Aged about 52 years R/at. Hobalapura Huchavanahalli Post-577534 Mayakinda Hobli Davanager Taluk & District.
(By Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka By Suratkal Police Station Suratkal-574158 Mangaluru Taluk Dakshinakannada District.
…Petitioners 2. Senior Geologist Department of mines and Geology Pandeshwara, Mangalore-574158 Mangaluru Taluk Dakshinakannada District.
(By Sri. K.P. Yashodha, HCGP) ...Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No.75/2008 (Now C.C.No.172/2008) against the petitioners for alleged offences P/U/S 4(10)(A), 9, 21(1)(2)(3)(4), 23 and 24 of M.M.R.D. Act and U/S 471, 379, 420 R/W 149 of IPC, registered by 1st respondent- suratkal police, pending before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
“a. Call for the records in Crime No.75/2008 (now CC No.172/2008) against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 4(10) (A), 9, 21(1)(2)(3)(4), 23, 24 of MMRD Act and under Section 468, 471, 379, 420 read with Section 149 of IPC, registered by the 1st respondent-Surathkal Police, pending before the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Mangalore b. Quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.75/2008 (now CC No.172/2008) against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 4(10) (A), 9, 21(1)(2)(3)(4), 23, 24 of MMRD Act and under Sections 468, 471, 397, 420 read with Section 149 of IPC, registered by the 1st respondent – Surathkal Police, pending before the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Mangalore, to meet the ends of justice.
c. Pass any other order or orders, which this Hon’ble Court deems it just and necessary in facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of Justice and equity.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint is by an unauthorized person and further acting on complaint by the Magistrate Court is without authority. It was further contended that the petitioners being the owners of the lorry, valid permit is required to be taken by the concerned person, who was transporting the minerals.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
There is no substance in the aforesaid contentions for the reasons that the competent officer of the Department of Mines and Geology, has presented the complaint in respect of the offences punishable under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
4. Section 22 of the Act reads as under:
“22. Cognizance of offences.- No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.”
5. Having regard to provisions of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, it does not distinguish which Court has to take cognizance. That apart, if there is no valid permit for transporting minerals and petitioners being the owners of the lorry, these are the matters which require to be tried before the appropriate Court.
The petitioners have not made out any case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to file necessary application for discharge at the relevant stage.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-