IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Crl.P.No.395 of 2019 BETWEEN SRI.MANJUNATH S/O.THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT.KIREHEALLI VILLAGE ALUR TALUK, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRATHEEP.K.C, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ALUR POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP ) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL, RPOCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN C.C.NO.436/2018 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND HMFC AT ALUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Pratheep K.C., learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP for the State.
2. The jurisdictional police registered an FIR in Crime No.303/2018 against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC r/w Section 4 (1A), 20 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMRD Act”, for short) on the basis of complaint filed under Section 200 r/w Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C., and Section 22 of MMRD Act, which came to be registered as PCR No.212/2018 and learned trial judge dispensed with recording of sworn statement of the complainant on the ground that complainant is a public servant and has issued summons to the accused by order dated 05.12.2018. Hence, petitioner is before this court for quashing of the proceeding pending in C.C.No.436/2018.
3. It is the contention of Sri. Pratheep K.C., learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the learned trial judge has opined that investigation conducted pursuant to registration of FIR in Crime No.303/2018 would be part and parcel of C.C.No.436/2018 and it is impermissible since the jurisdictional court would be empowered to take cognizance of offences under the provisions of MMRD Act only after filing of private complaint, that too, by the authorized officer. As such, investigation conducted pursuant to registration of FIR cannot be looked into and hence he seek for quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.436/2018.
4. Per contra, Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP for the State would support the case of prosecution and contend that initially FIR registered against petitioner was for both the offences which punishable under the provisions of IPC, i.e., 379 IPC, as well as Section 4 (1A) and 21 of the MMRD Act and in the light of bar contained under Section 22 of the MMRD Act, a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Police Inspector, Alur Police Station, Alur, who is authorized by the State Government as per extant notification and as such, there is no infirmity whatsoever committed by the trial court in issuing process to the accused calling for exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction by this Court. Hence, he prays for rejection of the petition.
5. The facts narrated hereinabove would clearly disclose that FIR in Crime No.303/2018 came to be registered on 07.06.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, as well as Section 4 (1A) and 21 of the MMRD Act. The jurisdictional Magistrate would not be empowered to take cognizance of any offence, which is punishable under the provisions of MMRD Act and the Rules made there under, except upon a complaint made in writing by the person authorized in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. The State Government in the instant case has issued a Notification dated 24.01.2018 under Section 22 of the MMRD Act authorizing the jurisdictional Police Officers/Station House Officers to file complaint in respect of the offence punishable under the MMRD Act. Hence, complaint in question came to be filed by the Police Inspector of Alur Police Station, Alur against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the MMRD Act, which complaint came to be registered in PCR No.212/2018 now pending in C.C.No.436/2018. At the time of directing the Registry to register the said complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken note of Crime No.303/2018 having already been registered against the petitioner.
6. If the act of the accused constitute an offence under the provisions of IPC, as well as the provisions of MMRD Act, registration of case both under IPC and MMRD Act per se would not be illegal. However, police would be empowered to proceed with the investigation and on filing of final report after investigation by the police, the jurisdictional Magistrate would be empowered to take cognizance in respect of IPC offences only and not for the offences punishable under the provisions of MMRD Act. It is because of this precise reason, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate while issuing summons to the accused has noticed that registration of FIR in Crime No.303/2018, which obviously would be with reference to only IPC offences, and in respect of the offences punishable under the provisions of MMRD Act, based on a complaint filed under Section 200 r/w Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., and Section 22 of MMRD Act, has proceeded to issue summons to the accused. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate being empowered to issue summons to the accused by dispensing with recording of sworn statement of public servant, insofar as offences under the provisions of MMRD Act is concerned, has issued summons to accused and in the instant case it is based on the complaint lodged by the Police Inspector, Alur Police Station, Alur (who is authorized officer) and same cannot be found fault with.
7. In that view of the matter, this court find there is no good ground to entertain this petition. However, it is made clear that learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offences based on the investigation made insofar as the offence under Section 379 IPC, is concerned and in respect of offences punishable under the provisions of the MMRD Act, on the strength of complaint filed. There is no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the trial court.
There is no other good ground to quash the proceedings. Hence, Criminal Petition is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Np/-