IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3155/2018 A/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.3156/2018, 3157/2018, 3264/2018, 3982/2018 IN CRL.P. 3155/2018: BETWEEN:
STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARKALA RURAL POLICE STATION KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT, REPRSENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) AND:
... PETITIONER MRS. RAMLATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O ABDUL RAZAK, RESIDING AT 4-134, BADAKAI BETTU BOLIYA KOLAVOOR, MANGALORE TALUK, REPT. BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI. BADRU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O ABUBAKKAR RESIDING AT:1-18, MULARA PATNA BADAGA BELLUR, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT – 574 211.
... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:23.02.2018 PASSED IN FIR NO.21/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA.
IN CRL.P. 3156/2018: BETWEEN:
STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARKALA RURAL POLICE STATION KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT RPERETED BY THE STATE PUBLIC COURT BANGALOL.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) AND:
SRI. ARUN KUMAR HEGDE S/O K. KRISHNAYYA HEGDE RESIDING AT ASHOK NIVASA DHARJE, KSKAL VILLEGE KARKALAL TALUK UDPI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:23.02.2018, PASSED IN FIR NO.33/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA.
IN CRL.P. 3157/2018: BETWEEN:
STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARKALA RURAL POLICE STATION KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 01.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) AND:
1. MRS. KAMALA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O NAGARAJ RESIDING AT ‘GURUPRASAD HOUSE’ MIYAR VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104.
2. MRS. ZAHIRA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O MOHAMMED TAHIR THUSSAIN RESIDING AT II-HAM BAUGH KABETTU CROSS ROAD KARKALA KASABA VILAGE KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, REPT. BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER, RASIB HUSSAIN TAHIR AGED ABOUT 28 EYARS S/O MOHAMMED TAHIR HUSSAIN RESIDING AT II-HAM BAUGH KABETTU CROSS ROAD KARKALA KASABA VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.
3. SRI. R. SUNDARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O RAMASWAMY RESIDING AT MANIPARAPU PADE LAMINA CROSS, NITTE VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:16.02.2018 PASSED IN FIR NO.6/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KARKAKALA.
IN CRL.P. 3264/2018: BETWEEN:
STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER BRAHMAVARA POLICE STATION UDUPI, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 01.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) AND:
SUDHEER SHETTY SHOBA NILAYA, KUDKUNJE CHERKADY VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT REGISTERED OWNER OF VEHICEL BEARING NO.KA20AA 296-576101.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:02.03.2018 PASSED IN CR.NO.39/2018 ON THE FILE OF TEH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI.
IN CRL.P. 3982/2018: BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BGY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 1.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) AND:
MR. YOGISH SALIAN S/O THANIYA R/AT. 4-33/9, SRIRAMA NAGAR, NADIBETTU, SANOOR KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104.
... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:08.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA IN FIR NO.32/2018 WHEREIN THE TRIAL COURT WAS PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 451, 457 OF CRPC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These petitions have been filed by the State calling in question order dated 23.02.2018 passed in FIR Nos.21/2018 and 33/2018 by II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala and Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala respectively; order dated 16.02.2018 passed in FIR No.06/2018 by II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala; order dated 02.03.2018 passed in Crime No.39/2018 by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi; and order 08.03.2018 passed in FIR No.32/2018 by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, whereunder applications filed by respective respondents/ applicants under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. came to be allowed and vehicles in question came to released in their favour conditionally namely, as per the conditions morefully set out in the impugned orders. Challenging the same, State is before this Court.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for petitioner- State. He would vehemently contend that learned trial Judge committed a serious error in releasing the vehicles accepting the indemnity bond executed by applicants and trial Courts ought to have insisted the applicants/respondents herein to furnish bank guarantees. Contending that said vehicles may be used for similar offences, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders.
3. Having heard the learned HCGP appearing for petitioner-State and on perusal of records it would clearly disclose that offences alleged against accused persons are under Sections 4, 4(1A), 21 of Minor Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’) and Rules 3(1), 42(1), 43(2), 43(8) and 44 of Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘KMMC Rules’) r/w Section 379 of IPC.
4. Issue regarding initiation of proceedings for offences punishable under Section MMDR Act and KMMC Rules made thereunder is no more res-intigra and same is laid to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NCT OF DELHI vs. SANJAY reported in AIR 2015 SC 75 whereunder it came to be held that in respect of offences under provisions of MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder, jurisdictional Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of a Police report but it has to be on the basis of complaint filed by authorised or empowered officer only.
5. Be that as it may. In the instant case, respective vehicles have been seized even prior to registration of complaint. Since seizure of the vehicle is prior to filing of the complaint and same being illegal, this Court by following earlier decisions has held that unless there are special reasons, stringent condition should not be imposed vide judgment in the case of SHRI SHAMBULINGAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.100868/2018 rendered on 25.04.2018 and same has attained finality.
6. In this background, order passed by learned trial Judge imposing condition of execution of indemnity bond for release of vehicles, cannot be found fault with. I do not find any other good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, they stand dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE DR