IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA WRIT PETITION NO.55142/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDIQUI S/O MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.13/6 VORKADY, KASARGOD KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI MOHAMMED M.K.
S/O LATE KUNHI ALI HAJI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT MUZAINA MANZIL G.H.S. ROAD KUNJATHUR, KASARGOD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ULLAL POLICE THROUGH STATEION PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME NO.442/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 42, 43 AND 44 OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONSISTENT RULE 1994, SEC.4(1), 4(1A) AND 21 OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 AND ALSO UNDER SEC.379 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-III COURT, MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.451 AND 457 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AT ANNEX-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records. In Crime No.442/2017, the Ullal Police had submitted first information report to the Court for the offences under Rules 42, 43 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Sections 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘MMDR Act’ for brevity) and Section 379 of IPC and the FIR was submitted to the J.M.F.C.-III Court, Mangaluru. The petitioner appears to have approached the learned Magistrate under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle involved in the case bearing registration No.KA-
21/A-3590, which was subjected under P.F.No.162/2017 dated 23.9.2017 of Ullal Police. The application has been rejected mainly on the ground that the Magistrate Court has no jurisdiction to try the cases under MMDR Act and the Special Court has jurisdiction to try the same. The Magistrate has misconceived himself that he has no jurisdiction to try any offence, in fact, the Magistrate is entitled to proceed with the case for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. Unless a private complaint is filed by the competent authority under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, neither the Special Court nor the Magistrate Court gets any jurisdiction to deal with the MMDR Act. However, there is no bar to entertain the FIR for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.
2. Under the above said circumstances, when the Magistrate has got jurisdiction to entertain the FIR and deal with the matter under Section 379 of IPC, he has got all powers to exercise under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.442/2017 dated 14.11.2017 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is restored on the file of Magistrate with a direction to pass appropriate orders on the said application considering the merits of the application as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-