Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1836 (KAR)

Rudragouda v. State of Karnataka

2019-08-13

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. 2. In this petition, petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR registered in Karatagi Rural P.S. Crime No.77/2015 for the offences punishable under sections 4(1), 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act' for short) besides Section 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'KMMC Rules' for short) and Section 379 of IPC, pending on the file of the Addl. JMFC Court, Gangavati, Dist. Koppal in C.C. No.1532/2015. 3. The factual matrix of the case are as under: It is stated in the complaint filed by the complainant alleging that on credible information, the complainant along with Mahabub Ali S/o. Abdul Kareemsab, Revenue Inspector, Siddapur, M. Vishwanath, Deputy Tahasildar, Siddapur, Nagaraj Assistant Engineer, PWD Gangavati, Basavaraj, Village Accountant of Nandihalli went to the scene of crime on 27.04.2015 at around 11:45 a.m. and raided 23 vehicles which were said to have used by the perpetrators/accused, which were unauthorizedly loaded with sand. It is further stated in the complaint that all the drivers took heel from the scene of crime on seeing the raid team led by the concerned authorities. The landed property in which the vehicles were present was belonging to one Veeresh S/o. Siddappa and he was also assisting for the illegal transportation of the sand from the Tungabhadra River. 4. It is further stated that in order to load the sand from the said spot, one Hitachi belonged to the petitioner and one JCG belonged to another accused Shivamurthy were taken away by the respective drivers and as such, the authorities were unable to cease those two vehicles. Subsequent to registration of crime against the accused persons, case was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer and after investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences in C.C. No.1532/2015. 5. Subsequent to registration of crime against the accused persons, case was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer and after investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences in C.C. No.1532/2015. 5. It is further stated that the petitioner said to have arraigned as accused and his name is revealed in the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and that subsequent to laying of the charge sheet, the said Hitachi vehicle said to have been used by the accused person for the purpose of extracting the sand from Tungabhadra River, without having any valid permit issued by the competent authority, as indicated in the mahazar said to be conducted by the Investigating Agency in the presence of panch witnesses and same has been revealed in the panchanama conducted. 6. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner taken me through the averments made in the complaint filed by the Deputy Tahasildar of Siddapur Unit, wherein he had led the team consisting of Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector and also concerned Assistant Engineer of PWD, Gangavati and raided the said vehicles used for the purpose of extracting the sand from Tungabhadra River. However, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused, in all accused Nos.1 to 37 and so also involvement of the vehicles. The primary ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the initiation of the criminal case against the accused by recording FIR which is contrary to recording the provisions of MMDR Act so also KMMC Rules. The cognizance taken by the concerned judicial magistrate is contrary to the aforesaid provisions. But the Police without taking permission from the competent Court of law has proceeded to initiate the crime by registering the FIR and laying the charge sheet against the accused in C.C. No.1532/2015. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 and submitted that the Honb'le Apex Court in detail has addressed all the issues which are required in this petition to quash the FIR and the charge sheet laid against the accused in C.C. No.1532/2015. Learned counsel further submitted that the competent authority is required to file a complaint in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submitted that the competent authority is required to file a complaint in accordance with law. Therefore, he submitted that intervention of this Court is required for quashing of the complaint and the FIR and the charge sheet laid against the petitioner in C.C. No.1532/2015. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in (Sri Vivek and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka by Kunigal Police Station, Tumkur District and Another, (2018) 2 KCCR 1239 ), wherein it has held that the offence under Section 379 IPC and Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, allegations as to illegal transportation of sand, charge sheet filed, committal of Special Court, plea that Police did not register any case though they have received credible information with regard to commission of cognizable offences as per Section 154 Cr.P.C. and Special Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and entertain charge sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is relevant to state that as per Section 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957, Police have no jurisdiction to register the FIR and investigate the offence under MMDR Act and KMMC Rules and to file report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. The said Section 22 of the MMRD Act, reads as under: "22. Cognizance of offence,- no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon the complaint in writing made by a persons authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance of the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi alias Ravindra and another vs. State of Karnataka, (2019) 3 KarLJ 33 , wherein it has addressed all the relevant issues relating to Section 22 of the MMDR Act and so also KMMC Rules as well as invocation of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for exercising inherent power for quashing of the FIR and the charge sheet laid against the accused for the alleged offences. It is further held that the registration of the FIR is only to set the law in motion. It is further held that the registration of the FIR is only to set the law in motion. If it is a cognizable offence, Section 154 of Cr.P.C. comes to the aid of Police Officer to register the case and it is lawful for him to register a case provided under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. to investigate with respect to search and seizure under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and under Rule 43, sub Rules (5) and (8), as amended. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the above ratio of reliances submitted that they are squarely applicable to the present case on hand, where the accused is required to face trial. On these primary grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for quashment of the entire proceedings. 11. Learned HCGP for the State countered to the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court has entirely addressed all the illegal issues required to be considered in this petition in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 . He further contended that the Police is barred from investigating and taking cognizance of offence under the provisions of MMDR Act and KMMC Rules. He further contended that the petitioner was transporting the sand illegally and without having any valid permit from the concerned authorities. Because of filing of the complaint by the concerned authorities, crime came to be registered, as the petitioner was involved in illegal transportation of sand. Hence, the learned HCGP sought for dismissal of the petition. 12. Having regard to the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also counter made by the learned HCGP, it is relevant to state that a case in Crime No.77/2015 of Karatagi P.S. came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. On careful perusal of the scope and object of the MMDR Act as well as KMMC Rules, it contained no provision empowering Special Court to take cognizance directly for the offence under the said Act and Rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard has already rendered a judgment by considering of all the legal issues which requires to be addressed in this petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard has already rendered a judgment by considering of all the legal issues which requires to be addressed in this petition. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and also the KMMC Rules and to file any report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. insofar as the cognizance of the offence are concerned, no Courts shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under this Act. 13. Under these circumstances, the investigation relating to MMDR Act and KMMC Rules are concerned, it requires intervention. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No.1532/2015 arise out of Crime No.77/2015 is hereby quashed, as the Police have no jurisdiction to proceed with the case for investigation and to file the final report as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. 14. However, the State is at liberty to take appropriate measures to comply with the aforesaid Section 22 of the MMDR Act, if need arises relating to the involvement of the accused for having transportation of the sand without having any valid permit. As such liberty is accorded to the State to approach the appropriate Forum to initiate the proceedings against the accused. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed in part. (ii) The further investigation relating to the case in Crime No.77/2015 of Karatagi P.S. is hereby quashed, insofar as it relates to the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, besides Section 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1994. (iii) Insofar as the offence under Section 379 of IPC is concerned, the investigating authorities are at liberty to investigate the case in accordance with law and to submit the report to the Court, as where the FIR is said to be pending.