1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners have sought for a common relief under section 482 of Cr.P.C./Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR in Crime No.32/2014 registered by the respondent Special Investigation Team (“SIT” for short) in so far as the petitioners are concerned for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w. section 120B of Indian Penal Code, section 13(1)(c)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, sections 4(1), 21 read with section 43 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act” for short) and Rules 43 and 46 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (“KMMC Rules” for short) pending on the file of the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Petitioners in all the above cases are the owners of different extent of patta lands described in the table as under:

3. According to the petitioners, they have executed a perpetual consent in favour of different Mining Companies. The said Companies have been carrying on quarrying operation and extraction of granite stones and its transportation by obtaining license and permit from the Government and the concerned Department. Lokayukta Police, Koppal, registered a suo motu complaint against the petitioners in Crime No.4/2014. Petitioners challenged the same before this court. This court ordered for stay of proceedings. During the operation of stay, the FIR was transferred to the first respondent -SIT who in turn registered a fresh FIR in Crime No.32/2014.

XXX

4(i). The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners having issued consent in favour of different Companies to carry on quarrying operations in their lands, no criminal case or FIR could have been registered against the petitioners for the alleged violation of the conditions of lease or contravention of the statutory rules. Petitioners having issued their consent, they are not involved in any of the quarrying activity or transportation of minerals. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly illegal and abuse of process of court.

4(ii). In the petitions, the petitioners have averred with regard to the respective extent of lands leased by them to the respective lessees and have further taken up a plea that the petitioners being the private parties, by virtue of section 7 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, Lokayukta officials have no jurisdiction to register the FIR relating to private quarrying lessees. In view of section 8 of the said Act, the Lokayukta cannot investigate into a complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place. It is contended that in all these cases the alleged illegalities are alleged to have been committed during the period from 19902014 whereas FIR has been registered in the year 2014; therefore, the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter.

4(iii). Nextly, it is contended that as per section 9(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta can proceed to investigate only on the receipt of the complaint accompanied by an affidavit. In the instant cases, complaints are not accompanied by such affidavits. The allegations made in the complaints do not attract the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Except declaring that the petitioners are involved in “fraudulent misappropriation” and have acted with “mala fide intention”, no specific allegations are made against the petitioners warranting criminal investigation against them. Once the land owners have issued consent, there is no involvement of the land owners in the quarrying activities. Therefore, registration of the FIR and investigation therein is an abuse of process of court and hence, liable to be set a side.

5(i). A detailed statement of objections/counter is filed by the respondent, opposing the petit