Karnataka High Court
Shankara Ram vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1714
CRL.P No. 132 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 132 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHANKARA RAM,
S/O BEERA RAM,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21/117,
KAVER NAGARA,
BANASHANKARI 5TH STAGE,
KATHRIGUPPE, BANGALORE CITY,
BANGALORE - 560 085
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed by DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE DISTRICT,
LEELAVATHI S R REPRESENTD BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.
2. N.P. RAJU,
REVENUE INSSPECTOR,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.M. WAHEED, HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1714
CRL.P No. 132 of 2025
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.465/2016 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 4(1), 4(1A) OF MMDR ACT 1957
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
COURT, DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
Call for the records in C.C.No.465 of 2016
pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Devanahalli and quash the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.465 of
2016 for the alleged offence punishable under
Sections 491), 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR (Mines and
Minerals Regulation of Development) Act, 1957
pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC Court, Devanahalli Bangalore.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned HCGP for the Respondent/State.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1714
CRL.P No. 132 of 2025
3. In addition to reiterating the various
contentions urged in the petition and referring to the
material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner
invited my attention to the impugned charge-sheet in
order to point out that the said proceedings initiated
against the petitioner under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and
22 of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act,
1957 (for short, MMDR Act) before the Respondent/Police
is impermissible since the same is not permissible under
Section 22 of the MMRD Act as held by this Court in the
case of A.Sridhar and others Vs. the State of Karnataka
and another decided on 04.12.2017 in Crl.P.No.9358 of
2017. It is therefore submitted that in the absence of a
complaint filed by an unauthorized person either by the
State Government or the Central Government under
Section 22 of the MMDR Act, the present police complaint
culminating in the impugned charge-sheet deserves to be
quashed.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:1714
CRL.P No. 132 of 2025
4. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is
no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be
dismissed.
5. In A.Sridhar‘s case (supra), this Court held as
under:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned HCGP takes notice to Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the records.
3. The petitioner has called in question the
proceedings before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Gudibande at Chikkaballapur, wherein after taking
cognizance, process has been issued to the
petitioners for the offences punishable under
Sections 379 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC and also under
Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21(5) of Mines and Minerals
Regulation and Development Act ( for
short, MMRD Act‘) and Sections 3 and 42 the
Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concession Rules (for
short, KMMC Rules).
4. Learned counsel submits before the court
that there is a bar under Section 22 of the MMRD
Act for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of
the offences under the MMRD Act and KMMC Rules.
Section 22 of MMRD Act reads as under:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:1714
CRL.P No. 132 of 2025Sec. 22: Cognizance of offences- No court
shall take cognizance of any offence punishable
under this Act or any Rules made hereunder
except upon complaint in writing made by a
person authorized in this behalf by the Central
Government or the State Government.”
5. In the above provision it is clear that, the
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance for
offences under the above said enactment and rules
unless a complaint is lodged by an authorized
officer. At this stage, it is worth note hear a
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR
2015 SC 75 between State of NCT Delhi, along
with other cases, wherein it has dealt with the
same situation and observed that the Magistrate
can only take cognizance for the offences
punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal
Code and he cannot take cognizance for the
offences under the Provisions of MMRD Act and
Rules in view of a specific bar under Section 22 of
the Act. The relevant portions at Paragraphs 68 to
72 of the said decision, reads as under:-
“68. There cannot be any dispute with regard
to restrictions imposed under the MMDR Act and
remedy provided therein. In any case, where
there is a mining activity by any person in
contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and
other sections of the Act, the officer empowered
and authorized under the Act shall exercise all
the powers including making a complaint before
the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is also not in
dispute that the Magistrate shall in such cases
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:1714
CRL.P No. 132 of 2025take cognizance on the basis of the complaint
filed before it by a duly authorized officer. In
case of breach and violation of Section 4 and
other provisions of the Act, the police officer
cannot insist Magistrate for taking cognizance
under the Act on the basis of the report
submitted by the police alleging contravention of
the said Act. In other words, the prohibition
contained in Section 22 of the Act against
prosecution of a person except on a complaint
made by the officer is attracted only when such
person sought to be prosecuted for contravention
of Section 4 of the Act and not for any act or
omission which constitute an offence under
Indian Penal Code.
69. However, there may be situation where a
person without any lease or licence or any
authority enters into river and extracts sands,
gravels and other minerals and remove or
transport those minerals in a clandestine manner
with an intent to remove dishonestly those
minerals from the possession of the State, is
liable to be punished for committing such offence
under Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal
Code.
70. From a close reading of the provisions of
MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section
378, IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients
constituting the offence are different. The
contravention of terms and conditions of mining
lease or doing mining activity in violation of
Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable
under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas
dishonestly removing
sand, gravels and other minerals form the river,
which is the property of the State, out of State’s
possession without the consent, constitute an
offence of theft.
71. Hence, merely because initiation of
proceeding for commission of an offence under
the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint cannot
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:1714
CRL.P No. 132 of 2025and shall not debar the police from taking action
against persons for committing theft of sand and
minerals in the manner mentioned above by
exercising power under the Code of Criminal
Procedure and submit a report before the
Magistrate for taking cognizance against such
person. In other words, in case where there is a
theft of sand and gravels from the Government
land, the police can register a case, investigate
the same and submit a final report under Section
173, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate having
jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance
as provided in Section 190(1)(d) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
72. After giving our thoughtful consideration
in the matter, in the light of relevant provisions
of the Act vis-a-vis the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, we are of
the definite opinion that the ingredients
constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and
the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and
gravel from the river beds without consent,
which is the property of the State, is a distinct
offence under the IPC. Hence, for the
commission of offence under Section 378,
Cr.P.C., on receipt of the police report, the
Magistrate having jurisdiction can take
cognizance of the said offence without awaiting
the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the
authorized officer for taking cognizance in
respect of violation of various provisions of the
MMRD Act. Consequently the contrary view taken
by the different High Courts cannot be sustained
in law and, therefore, overruled. Consequently,
these criminal appeals are disposed of with a
direction to the concerned Magistrates to
proceed accordingly.”
6. Under the above circumstances, the cognizance
taken by the learned Magistrate sofaras the above
said offences under the MMRD Act and Rules is hit
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:1714
CRL.P No. 132 of 2025
by Section 22 of the MMRD Act. Hence, the said
proceedings sofar it relates to MMRD Act and KMMC
Rules, deserves to be quashed. However it is made
clear that the Magistrate can deal with the offences
under Section 379 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.
7. In the circumstances, I pass the following:-
ORDER
The petition is partly allowed.
Cognizance taken and registration of the case
against the petitioners herein in CC No.381/2017
particularly for the offences under Sections 4(1),
4(1A), 21(5) of MMRD Act and Rules 3 and 42 of
KMMC Rules are hereby quashed.
However, the respondents – authorities are at
liberty to move the court by way of a private
complaint, if law permits.
In view of disposal of this case, the
application-IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not
survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said
application stands disposed of.
6. In the instant case, Respondent No.2/
complainant has directly approached Respondent No.1/
Police and filed a complaint, which is registered as Crime
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:1714
CRL.P No. 132 of 2025No.34 of 2015 and pending in C.C.No.465 of 2016, which
is impermissible and contrary to Section 22 of the MMDR
Act as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Under
these circumstances, the impugned proceedings as against
the petitioner deserves to be quashed. In the result, I
pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.465 of 2016 pending
on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru are quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
DH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
CT: BHK
[ad_1]
Source link