In the High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga Bench

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, GULBARGA BENCH DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE THE HONORABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16096/2013 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16097/2013 Crl.P.16096/2013 BETWEEN: Ganapati S/o Bhojannasa Rajlli Age: 50 years, Occupation: Agriculture R/o Ilkal, District: Bagalkot. …PETITIONER (By Shivanand Patil, Advocate) AND: 1. The State Through Mudgal Police Station. 2. Revenue Inspector Mudgal, Taluka: Lingasugur District: Raichur. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader for respondent-1 Shri Jayanadayya, Advocate for respondent-2) 2 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.128/2013 of the Mudgal Police Station pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Lingasugur and also grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity. Crl.P.16097/2013 BETWEEN: Laxman S/o Channabasappa Muchakhandi Age: 48 years, Occupation: Agriculture R/o Makapur Taluka: Lingasugur, District: Raichur. …PETITIONER (By Shivanand Patil, Advocate) AND: 3. The State Through Mudgal Police Station. 4. Revenue Inspector, Mudgal, Taluka: Lingasugur District: Raichur. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader for respondent-1 Shri Jayanadayya, Advocate for respondent-2) 3 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.127/2013 of the Mudgal Police Station pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Lingasugur and also grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity. This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following :- ORDER These petitions are considered and disposed of by a common order having regard to the common issues involved. 2. The complainant is the Revenue Inspector of Mudagal in Raichur district. The complaint is filed alleging offences punishable under the provisions of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘KMMC Rules’ for brevity) as well as Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’ for brevity). The petitioners are before this Court questioning the tenability of the case being entertained for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and have placed reliance on an earlier 4 decision of this Court, wherein, in identical circumstances, it has been held that if there are allegations of violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘MMDR Act’, for brevity) or the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, no Court should take cognizance of the same, except upon a complaint in writing by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Since the First Information Report is lodged with the jurisdictional police by a departmental official and the complaint is filed under Section 379 of the IPC, it is to be registered as a complaint for contravention of the provisions of the MMDR Act and not under Section 379 of the IPC. For otherwise it would result in the proceedings circumventing the mandate as provided under the MMDR Act as to the procedure under which the complaint shall be entertained. Therefore, notwithstanding the incidental invocation of Section 379 of the IPC, as there are allegations of violation of The Mineral Concession Rules, it was incumbent 5 on the authority to take recourse of the proper procedure. Therefore, on the face of it, since the complaint is not maintainable before the police, the proceedings are set at naught. The authorities are at liberty to initiate fresh appropriate proceedings if the law so permits. Petitions are allowed in terms as above. Sd/- JUDGE nsp.

Load more