Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 98 (KAR)

SURESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2019-01-08

H.P.SANDESH

body2019
JUDGMENT H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-state. 2. The factual matrix of this case is that Station Officer, Bankapur Police Station, Tq: Shiggaon, Dist: Haveri, has registered the case in Crime No.77/2018 dated 28.03.2018 against the petitioners who have been arrived as accused Nos.1 and 2 for alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (for short MMDR Act, 1957), Rules 31R, 13, 3(1), 42 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (KMMC Rules 1994) and under Section 379 of IPC, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Gajanan Raghunath Gaikwad, in-charge village accountant, Konanakeri. 3. The main contention of the petitioner in this case is that on the basis of the complaint annexed in Annexures- A and B complaint dated 28.03.2018 filed by the respondent No.2 is untenable in law and under Section 22 of MMDR Act, 1957 mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. 4. The allegations made in Annexures-A and B, FIR and complaint, according to the prosecution discloses that primarily the commission of certain offences under MMDR Act and KMMC Rules framed thereunder. According to Section 30B of the MMDR Act, the Special Court constituted for the purpose is alone entitled to take cognizance of the offences under MMDR Act and Rules framed thereunder. As per the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka in this behalf, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the District is designated as the Special Court. Therefore, the proceedings before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Shiggaon has no jurisdiction to entertain the Annexures-A and B i.e. FIR and complaint. Under the circumstances, the proceedings before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Shiggaon are illegal and without jurisdiction and hence proceed this Court to quash the main FIR at Annexure-A dated 28.03.2018 registered by the concerned police in Crime No.77/2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments has vehemently contended that the police officer is not having any jurisdiction to file the complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1A) of MMDR Act, 1957. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments has vehemently contended that the police officer is not having any jurisdiction to file the complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1A) of MMDR Act, 1957. In this case, the complaint was filed not only in respect of the offences under the MMDR Rules and also invoking Section 379 of IPC. Hence, the FIR issued against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments has contended that the police have also invoked 379 of IPC on the basis of the complaint dated 28.03.2018. The Magistrate is having the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and fairly submits that there is bar under Section 22 of MMDR Act, to take cognizance in respect of the offences under Section MMDR Act. 7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-state, the point for consideration arises before this Court is: Whether this Court can invoke under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the relief sought by the petitioners for quashing in respect of the crime registered against the petitioners? 8. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I would like to refer the proviso of Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, which reads as follows: "22. Cognizance of offences.- no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government." 9. On perusal of the complaint and FIR which is registered against these petitioners, the police have invoked the provisions of Section 4(1A) and 21 of MMDR Act, 1957, Rules 31R, 13, 3(1), 42 of KMMC Rules 1994 and under Section 379 of IPC. On perusal of the complaint and FIR which is registered against these petitioners, the police have invoked the provisions of Section 4(1A) and 21 of MMDR Act, 1957, Rules 31R, 13, 3(1), 42 of KMMC Rules 1994 and under Section 379 of IPC. Hence, I am of the opinion that the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 4(1A) and in respect of penal provisions under Section 21 of MMDR Act, 1957 and Rules 31R, 13, 3(1), 42 of KMMC Rules 1994, is contrary to law and when specific bar is their to take cognizance in the absence of a separate complaint by the authorized persons, the Court ought not to have taken the cognizance in respect of the said offences. Hence, I am of the opinion in respect of these provisions the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners is contrary to law and the same is to be quashed. Insofar as invoking Section 379 of IPC is concerned, I do not find any reasons to interfere with regard to the initiating the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. Based on the police report the Court can proceed for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 , distinguished with regard to the offences under the MMDR Act and also under Section 379 of IPC and also further held that there is no double jeopardy and both the offences are distinct and Court can proceed based on the police report in respect of the offence under Section 379 of IPC. Hence, in view of the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The petition is partly allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 4(1A) and 21 of MMDR Act, 1957, Rules 31R, 13, 3(1), 42 of KMMC Rules 1994 is hereby quashed. The initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 379 of IPC can be continued against the petitioners. However, the concerned authorized person is having at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in respect of the MMDR Act in accordance with law.