Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 8 (KAR)

Hulagappa v. State of Karnataka

2017-01-02

B.A.PATIL

body2017
ORDER : B.A. Patil, J. 1. Petitioner-accused No. 1 has approached this Court for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 121/2016 of Bhimarayanagudi Police Station. 2. The facts leading to the complaint are that one Somashekhar, Tahsildar of Shorapur lodged the complaint on 9.11.2016 at about 12.15 p.m. alleging that on 8.11.2016 at about 6.00 p.m., he received an anonymous call informing that sand is being illegally transported beyond his district limit in tipper lorries and the said tipper lorries are proceeding towards Kalaburgi District. Immediately complainant along with his staff went near the boundary of Yadagiri District. At about 6.30 p.m., two tipper lorries bearing Regn. Nos. KA. 33/A4397 and KA.33/A2003 loaded with sand were proceeding near Bhimarayanagudi. Immediately, the said tipper lorries were stopped and on enquiry with the drivers of the tipper lorries, they informed that the sand is being transported from Shorapur Karnal Stock Yard to Kalaburagi. When complainant asked about payment of royalty, the drivers showed for having paid the loyalty to lift the sand and deposited the same to Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Limited (KBJNL) at Mudabool. After verifying the same, the complainant telephonically enquired with the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Shorapur, who in turn informed that totally 36 Mineral Disposal Permits (MDPs) have been allotted to KBJNL. Immediately, complainant informed the drivers of the said tipper lorries to come to Bhimayarayanagudi Police Station. But, the drivers escaped in the darkness. Thereafter, complainant with the help of two substituted drivers took the tipper lorries to Bhimarayanagudi Police Station and thereafter he proceeded to KBJNL work at Mudabool and he got surprised by noticing that no canal work was being carried on at the alleged place and on enquiry with the public, he further got confirmed that no canal work was there in progress. Thereafter, the said fact was informed to his senior officers, a panchanama was drawn and subsequently, he also came to know that even though there was no work at KBJNL, MDPs have been issued not only to the said two lorries, but also to 34 tipper lorries and as such the complaint came to be lodged and a case has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 120B r/w. Section 149 of IPC and also Sections 4, 4A, 21(4) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act as well as Section 44(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rules, 1994. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is in no way connected to the alleged crime, he is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer, his role is to give permission to lift the sand only on the basis of the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Yadgir. It is further contended that such permission is granted on the basis of the request made to the Deputy Commissioner in the mentioned quantity. Only with an intention to harass the petitioner, he has been involved in the crime which is nothing, but abuse of process of law. Petitioner has issued 36 MDPs on the basis of request made by the Executive Engineer, KBJNL to the Deputy Commissioner, Yadgir and copies of the same were forwarded to him. In that light, he has not committed any offence as alleged. Petitioner is a respectable member of the society, there were no stigma in his entire service. He being a strict officer, is falsely implicated in the crime. It is also contended that viewed from any angle, the contents of FIR will not make any offence alleged against the petitioner. As such, he prayed for quashing the FIR. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has vehemently argued and contended that petitioner being the Officer incharge to issue MDP, a duty is cast upon him to verify whether any work is being carried out in the alleged place before he acts upon. He has further contended that the petitioner by abuse of process of law has issued illegal MDP and permitted to lift the sand in order to transport the same to other districts. He has further contended that the petitioner by abuse of process of law has issued illegal MDP and permitted to lift the sand in order to transport the same to other districts. He has also contended that there is prima facie material against the petitioner, no grounds are made out to quash the proceedings. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. In the light of the above submissions, let me consider whether the petitioner has made out any grounds so as to quash the FIR in Crime No. 121/2016 of Bhimarayanagudi Police Station. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-accused No. 1 is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in PWD, Shorapur and he is incharge of issuance of certificates of MDP. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has received copy of the request letter by the Executive Engineer, KBJNL addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Yadgir for his information for issuance of MDP. On the basis of copy of the said letter, the petitioner-accused No. 1 has acted upon and has issued MDP. Even though during the course of arguments it is contended that the petitioner is authorized to issue permit under MDP and nothing more than that. But however, a duty is cast upon the petitioner before issuance of such permit to verify as to what purpose and for which work the said sand is to be lifted and transported. In this behalf, in order to satisfy himself whether the petitioner has made a proper verification before issuing the MDPs to 36 tipper lorries is not forthcoming. Whether he has acted intentionally, negligently or with dereliction of duties, is a matter of fact, which has to be ascertained only after completion of investigation. When the investigation is still under progress and the entire material is not available before this Court, I deem it proper at this preliminary stage to hold that there is no abuse of process of law and there is no material so as to quash the proceedings. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has to be exercised staringly, carefully and with caution. Generally such power will not be exercised where the enquiry is required to be made to ascertain the facts. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has to be exercised staringly, carefully and with caution. Generally such power will not be exercised where the enquiry is required to be made to ascertain the facts. Inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or such complaint is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. But in the instant case, it reveals that illegally sand is being transported by obtaining frivolous MDP even though no work was being carried on at the alleged place. Whether petitioner-accused has any involvement or not will come to light only after completion of full investigation. At this premature stage, it cannot be held that there is no material against the petitioner. Apart from this, the said offence is an economic offence against the State and pertaining to natural resources, which requires a detailed enquiry so as to ascertain who all other persons are involved and previously how many such incidents have taken place. In that light, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.