Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 253 (KAR)

Devaray S/o Venkanna Nayak v. State of Karnataka

2025-06-06

VENKATESH NAIK T.

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) to quash entire proceedings in C.C.Nos.165/2023, 149/2023, 166/2023, 104/2023, 107/2023, 113/2023, 105/2023, 106/2023, 148/2023, 108/2023 and 119/2023 arising out of PCR Nos. 13/2023, 04/2023, 14/2023, 05/2023, 08/2023, 12/2023, 06/2023, 07/2023, 03/2023, 09/2023 and 32/2023 pending on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ankola for the offences punishable under Section 21 (1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('MMRD Act' for short) 1954 and Rule 44(1)(2)(3) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession, (for short, ‘the KMMCR’) 1994 (Amended Rule 2020). 3. Perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of establishment of Special Courts to try the offences under Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 , no private complaint is maintainable before learned JMFC so far as these cases are concerned. 5. Therefore, on this sole ground, learned counsel submits that entertaining of the complaint by learned JMFC and taking cognizance are bad in law and the same are liable to be quashed. 6. Section 30B of MMRD Act confers special status on the Special Courts and the Government has to establish Special Courts for the purpose of trying the offences under MMRD Act. There is no doubt so far as the above aspect is concerned. 7. Section 30B of the MMRD Act reads as under:- 30B Constitution of Special Courts: 1. The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences for contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4, constitute, by notification, as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification. 2. A Special Court shall consist of a Judge who shall be appointed by the State Government with the concurrence of the High Court. 3. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he is or has been a District and Sessions Judge. 4. 2. A Special Court shall consist of a Judge who shall be appointed by the State Government with the concurrence of the High Court. 3. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he is or has been a District and Sessions Judge. 4. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court may prefer an appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of such order. 8. In view of the above proposition of law, in order to deal with the matters under the above enactment, the Government has issued the notification constituting Special Courts for the purpose of dealing with the offences under MMRD Act. As per Section 30B of the MMRD Act, the Prl. District and Sessions Judge of every District have been designated as Special Judge. 9. In view of Section 30B of the MMRD Act and the notification issued as noted above, it is crystal clear that the Judicial Magistrate First Class has no right to entertain any complaint where the cases are filed under MMRD Act or Rules therein and with allied offences. In this background, as rightly submitted by learned counsel of the petitioners, learned JMFC could not have entertained the complaint and could not have taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners- accused persons herein. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance and issuing process against accused persons requires to be quashed. 10. Under the above said facts and circumstances and in view of the above proposition of law and notification, learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the above said offences. Thus, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate require to be quashed. Hence, the Court passes the following: ORDER : i. The petitions are allowed. ii. The order passed by learned Magistrate entertaining the complaints in C.C.Nos.165/2023, 149/2023, 166/2023, 104/2023, 107/2023, 113/2023, 105/2023, 106/2023, 148/2023, 108/2023 and 119/2023 arising out of PCR Nos.13/2023, 04/2023, 14/2023, 05/2023, 08/2023, 12/2023, 06/2023, 07/2023, 03/2023, 09/2023 and 32/2023 and taking cognizance of the offences thereof and issuing summons are hereby quashed. iii. However, the respondent-State is at liberty to file appropriate complaints in accordance with law before the Court having jurisdiction, if need, subject to point of limitation as prescribed under Section 468(c) of the Cr.P.C. iv. iii. However, the respondent-State is at liberty to file appropriate complaints in accordance with law before the Court having jurisdiction, if need, subject to point of limitation as prescribed under Section 468(c) of the Cr.P.C. iv. In view of the disposal of the petitions on merits, IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration.