ORDER : 1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners have sought for a common relief under section 482 of Cr.P.C./Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR in Crime No.32/2014 registered by the respondent Special Investigation Team (“SIT” for short) in so far as the petitioners are concerned for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w. section 120B of Indian Penal Code, section 13(1)(c)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, sections 4(1), 21 read with section 43 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act” for short) and Rules 43 and 46 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (“KMMC Rules” for short) pending on the file of the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Petitioners in all the above cases are the owners of different extent of patta lands described in the table as under: 3. According to the petitioners, they have executed a perpetual consent in favour of different Mining Companies. The said Companies have been carrying on quarrying operation and extraction of granite stones and its transportation by obtaining license and permit from the Government and the concerned Department. Lokayukta Police, Koppal, registered a suo motu complaint against the petitioners in Crime No.4/2014. Petitioners challenged the same before this court. This court ordered for stay of proceedings. During the operation of stay, the FIR was transferred to the first respondent -SIT who in turn registered a fresh FIR in Crime No.32/2014. XXX 4(i). The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners having issued consent in favour of different Companies to carry on quarrying operations in their lands, no criminal case or FIR could have been registered against the petitioners for the alleged violation of the conditions of lease or contravention of the statutory rules. Petitioners having issued their consent, they are not involved in any of the quarrying activity or transportation of minerals. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly illegal and abuse of process of court. 4(ii). Petitioners having issued their consent, they are not involved in any of the quarrying activity or transportation of minerals. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly illegal and abuse of process of court. 4(ii). In the petitions, the petitioners have averred with regard to the respective extent of lands leased by them to the respective lessees and have further taken up a plea that the petitioners being the private parties, by virtue of section 7 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, Lokayukta officials have no jurisdiction to register the FIR relating to private quarrying lessees. In view of section 8 of the said Act, the Lokayukta cannot investigate into a complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place. It is contended that in all these cases the alleged illegalities are alleged to have been committed during the period from 19902014 whereas FIR has been registered in the year 2014; therefore, the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter. 4(iii). Nextly, it is contended that as per section 9(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta can proceed to investigate only on the receipt of the complaint accompanied by an affidavit. In the instant cases, complaints are not accompanied by such affidavits. The allegations made in the complaints do not attract the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Except declaring that the petitioners are involved in “fraudulent misappropriation” and have acted with “mala fide intention”, no specific allegations are made against the petitioners warranting criminal investigation against them. Once the land owners have issued consent, there is no involvement of the land owners in the quarrying activities. Therefore, registration of the FIR and investigation therein is an abuse of process of court and hence, liable to be set a side. 5(i). A detailed statement of objections/counter is filed by the respondent, opposing the petition, inter alia contending that on the request of Hon’ble Lokayukta, Cr.No.4/2014 was transferred to Special Investigating Team, Karnataka Lokayukta for further investigation. The competent authority has not issued any license or working permission to the petitioners for carrying on quarrying activities in the lands in question. The petitioners have not taken working permission from the Department of Mines and Geology, Koppal, which is required as per Government Notification No.CI.350.MMN.2013 dated 05.03.2014. The competent authority has not issued any license or working permission to the petitioners for carrying on quarrying activities in the lands in question. The petitioners have not taken working permission from the Department of Mines and Geology, Koppal, which is required as per Government Notification No.CI.350.MMN.2013 dated 05.03.2014. Hence, the quarrying operations carried on in the properties owned by the petitioners is illegal and hence, FIR was registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.4/2014. 5(ii). In so far as the jurisdiction of the SIT to investigate into the alleged offences under MMDR Act and KMMC Rules is concerned, it is contended that by virtue of Government Notification bearing No.CI.21. MMN(2). 2014 dated 21.01.2014, Government of Karnataka authorized the officers specified in column (2) thereof and the officers of the Police Department to initiate criminal proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent has no jurisdiction to register/investigate the cases under MMDR Act/KMMC Rules is untenable. 5(iii). It is further contended that the offences under section 4(1) read with section 21 of the MMDR Act is a cognizable offence. The Investigating Officer has obtained authorization under section 166 of Cr.P.C. from the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur and conducted spot mahazar. Therefore, there is no illegality either in the registration of the FIR or in the competence of the SIT to investigate into the alleged offences and thus, the respondent has sought to reject the petition. 6. In the light of the above contentions, the points that arise for consideration are as under: (1) Whether the SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta is authorized to register the FIR and to investigate into the alleged offences? (2) Whether the allegations made against the petitioners prima facie constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against them in the FIR? 7. The material on record indicates that Government of Karnataka referred several issues concerning illegal mining in the State to the Hon’ble Karnataka Lokayukta for investigation under section 7(2A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984 vide its order dated 12.03.2007 and 09.09.2008. Pursuant to the second report of the Hon’ble Lokayukta dated 27.07.2011, the State Government constituted a High Level Committee for implementation of the recommendations and observations made in the Lokayukta Report in the Government Order dated 18.08.2011. 8. Pursuant to the second report of the Hon’ble Lokayukta dated 27.07.2011, the State Government constituted a High Level Committee for implementation of the recommendations and observations made in the Lokayukta Report in the Government Order dated 18.08.2011. 8. The Hon’ble Lokayukta has dealt with a large number of cases pertaining to illegal mining issues in several Chapters in the second report dated 2772011 and has recommended further investigations on several issues by competent agencies. The High Level Committee after examining the detailed investigation report part-II recommended various measures and actions to be taken by the State Government. One of the recommendations of the High Level Committee was to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT). Accordingly a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the chairmanship of Sri. Deepak Sharma, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, an interdisciplinary team of experts comprising of Heads of various Departments was constituted vide order dated 09.01.2012 to carry out further investigation in a total of 26 issues pertaining to illegal mining in the State. 9. In the meanwhile, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 16.09.2013 in an Interlocutory Application No.189 of Writ Petition 562/2009 has permitted the CBI to refer the matters with respect to the exporters who had exported less than 50,000 MTs and were not enquired into in the preliminary enquiry and also has permitted the CBI to refer the cases of exporters who had exported less than 50,000 MTs of iron ore without valid permits to refer to the Government of Karnataka for taking further necessary action under the relevant laws as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee report dated 592012. 10. Accordingly, the Government took a Cabinet decision to refer all the issues mentioned in the annexure to Government Order No:CI 282 MMM 2011 dated 09.01.2012 to the Hon’ble Lokayukta for further investigation by the Lokayukta Police except three issues. 10. Accordingly, the Government took a Cabinet decision to refer all the issues mentioned in the annexure to Government Order No:CI 282 MMM 2011 dated 09.01.2012 to the Hon’ble Lokayukta for further investigation by the Lokayukta Police except three issues. Accordingly, the Government issued order NO.CI.282:MMM.2011(P), Bengaluru dated 22.11.2013 which reads as follows: GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.CI.282:MMM.2011(P), BENGALURU, DATED:22.11.2013 The State Government, after considering the recommendations of Hon’ble Lokayukta in the second part of the report dated: 2772011 for cases where there is need for further enquiry, and as per the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated: 16.09.2013 in I.A.No.189 of Writ Petition No.562/2009, The Government in Suppression of the earlier orders No.CI 282 MMM 2011 Dated:09.01.2012 and 25.06.2012 hereby entrusts such cases enumerated comprehensively in the AnnexureA of this Government Order for detailed investigation to the Hon’ble Karnataka Lokayukta for further investigation by the Lokayukta Police and to proceed with criminal prosecutions if necessary. BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA (K.VENKATESH), Under Secretary to Government (Mines) (I/c) Commerce & Industries Department. 11. As could be seen in Annexure‘A’ appended to the said order, the issues referred to the Hon’ble Lokayukta for further investigation are listed therein. The illegalities pertaining to the petitioners herein find mention in the said Annexure‘A’. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to register FIR and investigate into the alleged offences is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, said contention is rejected. 12. In so far as the investigation into the offences under the provisions of the MMDR Act is concerned, it is also a matter on record that the registration of the FIR in Crime No.32/2014 was challenged by one of the accused Linganagouda and others in Criminal Petition Nos.5684/2015, 5686/2015, 5945/2015 and 6689/2015. A prayer was made therein for quashing the entire proceedings and FIR in Crime No.32/2014. This court vide order dated 28.03.2017 quashed the entire proceedings and FIR in Crime No.32/2014. A prayer was made therein for quashing the entire proceedings and FIR in Crime No.32/2014. This court vide order dated 28.03.2017 quashed the entire proceedings and FIR in Crime No.32/2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos.62446251 of 2017 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) has passed an order in Criminal Appeal Nos.17771784/2017 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.62446251 of 2017) on 12.10.2017 setting aside the order passed by this Court which reads as under: “The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, filed a complaint dated 30.05.2014 addressed to Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, making allegations of illegal mining by certain private persons in collusion with the public servants. When the said allegation was being investigated, the respondents filed a petition before the High Court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 challenging the proceedings on the ground that the cognizance of the offence under section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 can be taken only a complaint of a specifically authorized person. This plea has been upheld by the High Court and proceedings quashed. We find that the stage of cognizance will arise only after investigation is completed and there is no bar to the investigation being carried out by the Lokayukta Police on the complaint in question particularly when the allegation include offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this view of matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed. The concerned Police may carry out the investigation and proceed in accordance with law.” In the light of the above order, even the contention urged by the petitioners that the SIT has no jurisdiction to register the FIR and investigate into the alleged offences is liable to be rejected. 13. Coming to the allegations made against the petitioners constituting the offences alleged against them, on careful reading of the FIR, it is noticed that before lodging the complaint, a preliminary enquiry is conducted and a source report was prepared and it was ascertained that illegal quarrying activity, extraction of granite and transportation was being carried on in the landed properties owned by the petitioners herein. There is a specific allegation in the charge-sheet that the said activities were being carried on without valid license from the Mines and Geology Department, Koppal. There are also allegations that in some cases, permits were misused and on the strength of the said permits, quarrying activities were taking place in the Government lands. The records discloses that a joint survey was conducted by the Director of Mines and Geology and Revenue Department and it was prima facie ascertained that in the properties described in the schedule above, the aforesaid illegal quarrying activities were committed. The relevant revenue extracts were also produced before the Court to show that the petitioners herein were holding the said lands. Even though the petitioners have contended that once the petitioners having executed consent in favour of various Companies and the lessees, they are not liable for the activities carried on in the said properties. The said contention cannot be accepted at this juncture, in the wake of the allegation contained in the charge-sheet that the quarrying activities were carried on in the properties without valid license in connivance with the land owners. 14. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code to prevent abuse of process of the court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is also well settled that the inherent powers under this provision should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. It is a settled proposition that the wholesome power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding only when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 15. In MACHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA & Others vs. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE & Others reported in 1988 Cri. 15. In MACHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA & Others vs. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE & Others reported in 1988 Cri. L.J. 853, it is held that: “The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.” 16. In the instant case, as already stated above, the criminal action is initiated after due enquiry based on the source report which prima facie makes out serious violation and contravention of the statutes. The Magnitude of the transactions and the ramification of the offences are required to be unearthed in a thorough and penetrating investigation. On careful consideration of the allegations made in the charge-sheet and the material produced by the respondent before the Court, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the FIR registered against the petitioners and the investigation initiated thereon. The allegations made in the FIR prima facie make out ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The SIT is duly authorized and competent to investigate into the matter. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the alleged violations are investigated by the respondent. The exact role played by each of the petitioners could be ascertained only after investigation. If the investigation leads to the final opinion that the alleged offences are committed without the knowledge and connivance of the petitioners, the charges against the petitioners would naturally be dropped. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners have resulted in abuse of process of court is ill founded. The petitioners have failed to make out any justifiable ground to quash the FIR and the consequent investigation. As a result, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the above petitions are hereby dismissed.