The investigating officer is required to register a crime before undertaking any investigation when credible information about the commission of a cognizable offence is received.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged the cognizance taken by the Principal District and Sessions and Special Judge, Udupi District in Spl.C.No.45/2017 for the offences punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC and Ss. 4, 4(A), 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules 3(1), 42(1), 43(2), 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

2. The case of the prosecution was that, on credible information received by the investigating officer that the accused was conducting quarrying of red stone, they visited the spot on 12/4/2017 along with officials of the revenue department and found that the accused was quarrying the land in Sy.No.112/2 and 112/3 without obtaining appropriate licences and permissions and therefore, seized the equipments used for quarrying and later, registered a Crime No.46/2017 for the offence punishable under Ss. 4, 4(A), 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957, Rules

3. (1), 42(1), 43(2), 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Sec. 379 of IPC. The chargesheet was filed for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court after considering the charge-sheet and the material enclosed with it, took cognizance for the offence punishable under offences punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC and Ss. 4, 4(A), 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules 3(1), 42(1), 43(2), 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and consequently, charged the accused for the said offences. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that Sec. 379 of IPC was a cognizable offence and the investigating officer was bound to register a complaint before undertaking investigation or search or seize the equipments used for committing offence. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari vs. State of U.P. [2014 (2) SCC 1] and submitted that consequent charge-sheet filed by the prosecution as well as the cognizance taken by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC deserves to be set at naught.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the cognizance taken was in accordance with law and that the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari supra, was not violated. He submitted that upon receiving the information, the investigating officer was entitled to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether the information received was true or not and therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner/accused is just and proper.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.

7. The complaint lodged by the Geologist, Mines and Geology Department, Udupi, clearly discloses that they had credible information about the unlawful quarrying in the land bearing Sy.Nos.112/2 and 112/3 of Kalthur village, where the petitioner/accused was quarrying the red stone. Therefore, the jurisdictional police had information about the commission of the cognizable offence and thus, it was incumbent upon them to register a crime before undertaking investigation more particularly, when the information was received from the Geologist of the concerned area. The investigating officer was therefore, bound to register a crime before undertaking any investigation. That not having been done and the seizure of the equipments used for the commission of the offence being prior to registration of F.I.R., all falls foul of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari, supra and therefore, all proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be halted.

8. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. All proceedings against the petitioner in Spl.C.No.45/2017 on the file of the Principal District and S