IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102259/2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.100053/2019, 100054/2019, 102260/2018, 101997/2018, 102064/2018, 102258/2018 AND 100032/2019
IN CRL.PET.NO.102259/2018
BETWEEN :
GANGAPPA BASAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: UGARAGOLA, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH SAVADATTI POLICE STATION, SAVADATTI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP) 2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN SAVADATTI P.S.CR. NO.131/2018 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.379 OF IPC & U/SEC.4(1), 4(1A), 21 & 22 OF MMDR ACT ON THE FILE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVADATTI MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED.
IN CRL.PET.NO.100053/2019
BETWEEN :
1. JAVEED KUTUBUSAB MULLA, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ARALIKATTI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SIDDAPPA GOUDAPPA PATIL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ARALIKATTI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. VITTAL BASALINGAPPA MALED, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MELAVANKI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION, GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP) 3
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN C.C. NO.1839/2018 (GHATAPRABHA P S CR.NO.317/2017) PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. JMFC, GOKAK FOR THE OFFENCES U/S. 379 OF IPC & U/S. 4(1), 4(1A), 21 OF MMDR ACT 1957 IN SO FAR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 BE QUASHED.
IN CRL.PET.NO.100054/2019
BETWEEN :
SATTEPPA LAGAMAPPA KATTI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: HALE VANTAMURI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH YAMAKANMARDI POLICE STATION, YAMAKANMARDI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.837/2018 (YAMAKANMARDI P.S. CR. NO.101/2018) FOR THE OFFENCES U/S. 379 OF IPC & U/S. 4(1), 4(1A), 21 OF MMDR (MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1957 AND RULES 3, 32, 42, 44 OF KMMC RULES 1994 BE QUASHED IN SO FAR PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
4
IN CRL.PET.NO.102260/2018
BETWEEN :
DUNDAPPA NINGAPPA HAGALAMBI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: NANDESHWAR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD THROUGH ATHANI POLICE STATION, ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN ATHANI P.S. CRIME NO.263/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, ATHANI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 379 OF IPC & U/S 4(1), 4(1A), 21 OF MMDR ACT, 1957 & U/S 3, 32, 44 OF KMMC RULE, 1994, BE QUASHED INSOFAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1.
IN CRL.PET.NO.101997/2018
BETWEEN :
KHANNAPPA LAKSHMAPPA KUNJAGA, AGE:24 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER, R/O. KHANAGANV, TAL:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE) 5
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD THROUGH GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION, GOKAK, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2149/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 4(1),4(1A), 21 OF MMDR ACT, 1957 ON THE FILE OF II JMFC COURT, GOKAK AND CONSEQUENTLY AN ORDER OR DIRECTION TO RELEASE THE VEHICLE SEIZED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
IN CRL.PET.NO.102064/2018
BETWEEN :
1. CHIDANAND LAKSMAPPA BANDI, AGE: YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE/DRIVER, R/O. MALADINNI, TAL:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. MAHADEV YALLAPPA KAGAL, AGE: YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE/OWNER OF VEHICLE, R/O. MALADINNI, TAL:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE)
6
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION, GOKAK, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2263/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 4(1),4(1A), 21 OF MMDR ACT, 1957 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. JMFC COURT, GOKAK AND CONSEQUENTLY AN ORDER OR DIRECTION TO RELEASE THE VEHICLE SEIZED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
IN CRL.PET.NO.102258/2018
BETWEEN :
YALLAPPA GANGAPPA DONKAPPAGOL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/DRIVER, R/O: PUDAKALAKATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION, GOKAK, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP) 7
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN CC NO.2148/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC. 4(1), 4(1A), 21 OF MMDR ACT 1957 ON THE FILE OF II-ADDL.JMFC, GOKAK & IN SO FAR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1.
IN CRL.PET.NO.100032/2019
BETWEEN :
ARJUN S/O. KALLOLEPPA GORABAL, AGE: YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. DHARMATTI, NOW AT PATAGUNDI, TAL:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH KULAGOD POLICE STATION, KULAGOD, TAL:GOKAK, BELAGAVI.
2. R I BILAGI, PSI, KULAGOD POLICE STATION, KULAGOD, TAL:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN CC NO.2928/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES SECTIONS 4(1), 1(A), 21 OF MMDR ACT 1957 & RULES 3, 32, 44 KMMC RULES 1994 IN CC NO.2928/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. JMFC-GOKAK IN SO FAR ACCUSED NO.2 / PETITIONER.
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON : 30.01.2019.
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 14.02.2019. 8
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
Though these matters are listed for admission, with the consent of the petitioners’ counsel and the learned HCGP, they are taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Though, all these cases arise out of different crime numbers of different police stations and pending before different Court, since issue involved in the cases is only question of law and the same is common in all these cases, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 9
4. The prayer sought in these petitions by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to quash the entire proceedings pending before the different Courts since the respective cases are registered for both the offences under the MMDR
Act and Rules and Under IPC.
5. For the purpose of brevity and convenience, the particulars of the crime number, police station, name of the complainant and his designation are set out in the tabular column below:
Sl. Case Number Crime Number Police Complainan Offences No. Station t’s name invoked and designation 1 Crl.P.102259/ 2018 Crime Saundatti I.M. S. 379 of IPC, 131/2018 P.S. Mathapathi S.4(1), 4(1), 22, (PSI) 42 of MMDR Act 2 Crl.P.100053/2019 Crime Ghataprabha S.R. S.379 of IPC, No.317/2017 P.S. Kattimani, S.4(1), 4(1A), (CC No. (Police 21 of MMDR 1839/2018 Inspector) Act 3 Crl.P. 100054/2019 Crime Yamakanam S.H. S.379 of IPC, No.101/2018 aradi P.S. Karaning, S.4(1), 4(1A), ASI 21 of MMDR Act, Rules 3, 32, 42, 44 of KMMC Rules 4 Crl.P.102260/2018 Crime Athani P.S. Suresh C S.379 of IPC, No.263/2018 Bendegumba S.4(1), 4(1A), l (PSI, L&O) 21 of MMDR 10
Act, Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules 5 Crl.P. 100032/2019 PCR - R.I. Bilagi S.4(1), 4(1A), No.3/2018 (CC (PSI) 21 of MMDR No.2928/2018) Act, Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules 6 Crl.P.101997/2018 CC 2149/2018 - G.B. Kognoli S.4(1), 4(1A), (PSI) 21 of MMDR Act 7 Crl.P. 102064/2018 CC 2263/2018 - Pradeep Y S.4(1), 4(1A), Talakeri 21 of MMDR Act 8 Crl.P.102258/2018 CC 2148/2018 G.B. Kognoli S.4(1), 4(1A), (PSI) 21 of MMDR Act, Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules
6. It is the contention of the petitioners that the complaint is filed in respect of violation of the Minor and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MMDR Act’ for brevity), the Karnataka Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1994’ for brevity).
7. The main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that the Police officer has no right to register the case against the petitioners and there is specific bar under Section 22 of the
MMDR Act and only based on the complaint, law 11
has to be set in motion and in support of his contention, the counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay , reported in
(2014) SCC 772 and Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho Vs
Jagdish reported in (2001) 2 SCC 247 and also judgments of this Court in Vivek and Another Vs.
The State of Karnataka, by Kunigal Police Station and Another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1497; Crl.P.
No.102167/2018 and Crl.P.No.8671/2017 and this contention cannot be accepted and this Court in
Crl.P. No.101274/2018 and connected matters has categorically held that the offences under the
MMDR Act is cognizable under Section 21(6) of the
MMDR Act, hence, under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.,
Station House Officer has got power to register the case as held by the Apex Court in the case of
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2014 SC 187 and the bar 12
is only for taking cognizance and not for any investigation and the Police Officer who is authorized under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and the
Notification, can register the FIR and investigate the case, only the Court can take the cognizance for the IPC offences under Section 173(2) of
Cr.P.C. as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs.
Sanjay (supra) and for the offences under the
MMDR Act, cognizance can be taken only on the complaint by authorized person. When such being the case, this Court in detail discussed the same in batch cases in Crl.P. No.101274/2018 as referred above and not disagreed with the principles of above cases, only clarified that scope of Cr.P.C. as well as scope of taking cognizance.
Hence, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioners’ counsel that the officer ought not to have registered the case against the 13
petitioners except upon complaint and hence, the very petitions are liable to be dismissed since the offences are cognizable and the Authorized Officer of the Police Station can register the case of cognizable offence and investigate the matter and bar is only for taking cognizance in respect of petitions mentioned in the tabular column at
Sl.No.5 to 8.
8. On perusal of the material on record, the cases are registered based on the complaint and the Court has also taken cognizance based on the complaint filed by authorized person and it is made clear that in the judgment of (2014) 9 SCC
772 in the case of State (NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay, it is held that for the IPC offences, case can be proceeded as per initiation of the case by the police officer and if the offence is under the special enactment, cognizance can be taken only 14
on the complaint. On perusal of the records, cognizance is taken based on the complaint of police and not on the complaint as contemplated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act and hence, the cognizance taken for the offences under Section
379 of IPC has to be continued and cognizance taken for the offence under the MMDR Act is liable to be quashed.
9. In view of the discussions made above,
I proceed to pass the following order:
i.Criminal Petition Nos.100053/2019
and 100054/2019 are allowed in
part.
ii.The cognizance taken for the offence
under the MMDR Act is quashed
and the cognizance taken for the
offences under Section 379 of IPC
is continued. 15
iii.The authorized officer is having
liberty to file complaint for the
offence under the MMDR Act.
iv. Criminal Pet. Nos.102259/2018, 102260/2018, 101997/2018, 102064/2018, 102258/2018 and 100032/2019 are dismissed.
v. In view of disposal of the main petitions, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration, hence, they are also dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE
JTR
16
Crl.P.No.102259/2018 C/w.Crl.P.No.100053/2019 Crl.P.No.100054/2019 Crl.P.No.102260/2018 Crl.P.No.101997/2018 Crl.P.No.102064/2018 Crl.P.No.102258/2018 Crl.P.No.100032/2019
HPSJ: 07.03.2019
ORDER IN CRL.P.NO.100032/2019
ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’
I have heard the counsel for petitioners.
This matter is listed for ‘being spoken to’ with regard to the correction in the judgment.
In criminal petition No.100032/2019, though the complaint is filed in the name of PSI, the ASI has signed and pretended that complaint is filed by PSI. In view of the notification of 2014, the ASI is not an authorized person.
Hence, the petition has to be allowed and taking of cognizance for the offence under the special enactment under MMDR Act has to be quashed with liberty to the concerned authorized person to proceed in accordance with law. 17
Hence, having taken note of the same, Criminal Petition
No.100032/2019 is allowed. Taking of cognizance of the offence under the MMDR Act against the petitioner is quashed. Liberty is given to the authorized person to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
This order shall be the part and parcel of the main order dated 14.2.2019.
Sd/- JUDGE msr