Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
H.P. SANDESH, J.
Ravi and Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka and Ors - Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 101274, 101815, 101986, 102023, 102059, 102060, 102061, 102062, 102107, 102122, 102126 and 102281 of 2018
Decided On : 06-02-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 22 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Payment of royalty apply in Form AP - Punishment - Quash - States possession without consent constitute an offence of theft- Hence merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in manner mentioned above by exercising power Code of Criminal Procedure and submit a report before Magistrate for taking cognizance against such persons and further that on receipt of police report Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of said offence without awaiting receipt of complaint that may be filed by Authorized Officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions and hence prayed this Court to dismiss petition –Held, Court can take cognizance only on complaint filed by authorized person- Hence it clear that police can investigate matter if cognizable offence is taken place irrespective of penal provisions whether special enactment or general law and same can be made use of by authorized person and stage of cognizance can only be taken after completion of investigation as Apex Court there cannot be any bar to Police Officer to initiate proceedings and enquire into matter case both provisions not illegal and police may proceed with investigation- However police shall file a police report only in respect of offences punishable and in respect authorized person can file a separate complaint- In any event if police officer files a final report in respect of offences as well as Magistrate may take cognizance of offences IPC alone and proceed with trial and not for offence Act- If charge sheet filed for offence Central Government or State Government and not on police report- Hence Court of view that if any cognizable offence is taken place irrespective of whether offences General Act or Special enactment Police Officer who is authorized person is bound to register case and proceed with investigation and hence question of quashing of registering cases for both Act and special enactment does not arise and same is only setting law in motion and for investigation bar is specific petitioners who have urged in all petitions that there cannot be any registration of case against both offences cannot be accepted- Cases registered by police for respective offences as FIR cannot be quashed and cases which are registered as CC cases based on complaint as mentioned Section Special Act and hence Court has taken cognizance based on complaint – Petition disposed
ORDER :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
1. 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.
4. The prayer sought in the 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 MMRD 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. No. | Case Number | Crime Number | Police Station | Complainant's name and designation | Offences invoked |
| 1 | Crl. P. 101274/2018 | Crime 230/2015 | Gangavathi P.S. | Manjunath V Hiremath (Revenue Inspector) | 379, 511 of IPC, 42, 44(1), 44(2) of KMMC Rules, 1994 |
| 2 | Crl. P. 101815/2018 | PCR136/18 (CC 869/18) | - | J.B. Pujeri (ASIYamakanamaradi P.S.) | 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act, 1957 |
| 3 | Crl. P. 101986/2018 | PCR147/18 (CC 1058/2018) | - | B.S. Talwar, PSI, Yamakanamaradi P.S.) | 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act |
| 4 | Crl. P. 102023/2018 | PCR34/18 (CC 634/18 | - | S.N. Nayak (PSIKatakol) | 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules |
| 5 | Crl. P. 102059/2018 | P.C. Crime No. 66/2018 | ASI, Khanapur, Belagavi | Narayanswami, (P.I. Belagavi Rural P.S.) | 379 of IPC, 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules |
| 6 | Crl. P. 102060/2018 | P.C. Crime No. 66/2018 | ASI, Khanapur, Belagavi | Narayanswami, (P.I. Belagavi Rural P.S.) | 379 of IPC, 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules |
| 7 | Crl. P. 102061/2018 | P.C. Crime No. 66/2018 | ASI, Khanapur, Belagavi | Narayanswami, (P.I. Belagavi Rural P.S.) | 379 of IPC, 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules |
| 8 | Crl. P. 102062/2018 | P.C. Crime No. 66/2018 | ASI, Khanapur, Belagavi | Narayanswami, (P.I. Belagavi Rural P.S.) | 379 of IPC, 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules |
| 9 | Crl. P. 102107/2018 | PCR No. 155/2018 (CC No. 1018/2018) | - | Gajanan K Nayak (PSIYamakanamaradi P.S.) | 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act |
| 10 | Crl. P. 102122/2018 | PCR No. 160/2018 (CC No. 1037/2018) | - | Gajanan K Nayak (PSIYamakanamaradi P.S.) | 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act |
| 11 | Crl. P. 102126/2018 | P.S. Crime No. 154/2018 | Kudachi P.S. | Z.N. Mokashi (PSI, Kudachi P.S.) | 4(1), 4(1A), 21, 42, 22 of MMDR Act |
| 12 | Crl. P. 102281/2018 | PCR No. 197/2018 (CC No. 1141/2018) | - | J.B. Pujeri (ASI, Yamakanamaradi P.S.) | 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act |
6. The main contention of the petitioners is that the complaint is filed in respect of violation of the Minor and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1957 for brevity), the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1994' for brevity). The respondent had no authority to register a complaint in respect of the said offences. The complaint could be filed only in accordance with Section 22 of the Act, 1957 and the said complaint ought to have been filed before the jurisdictional Court by a person authorized in this behalf by the State or the Central Government. Section 22 of the Act, 1957 is mandatory it cannot be circumvented under any circumstances and merely because provisions under the Indian Penal Code are invoked against the petitioners, jurisdictional Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
