ORAL ORDER

Learned AGA for respondent – State.

2. The petitioner challenges the cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Sections 9(2)(vi), 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1), 17(2), 3c(3), and 3c(5) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, as well as Sections 16(1) and 17(1) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011.

3. The respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), alleging that the petitioner was granted a license for stone crushing, and during the currency of the license, he stacked minerals and carried out stone crushing without paying royalty to the government. The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the complaint, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court.

4. The other accused had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.100425/2025 and this Court quashed the proceedings insofar it relates to accused No.5 and 11 by observing as follows;

5. Rule 3-C of the Rules of 2012 states that no crusher licensee shall receive, store, or cause to store any minerals or processed minerals on its premises without a valid mineral dispatch permit issued in accordance with mineral concession rules.

6. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3-C further provides that if any mineral or its processed product is found on the premises of a crusher licensee without proper royalty payment, the competent authority shall, after granting an opportunity of hearing, initiate penal action under the provisions of the Act.

7. Therefore, before initiating any penal action, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the crusher licensee. Upon considering the reply, if any, submitted by the licensee, the competent authority must pass an appropriate order. The licensing authority may, thereafter, pass an order canceling the license, imposing a fine, or initiating criminal prosecution.

8. Section 15 of the Act of 2011 provides for an appeal against any order passed by the licensing authority, stating that such an appeal shall lie before the Regional Commissioner.

9. In similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.101794/2021, while dealing with similar provisions under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, referred to Section 48 of the said Act, which provides for the compounding of offences, and Section 50, which provides for an appeal.

10. In reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Shalini K. v. Inspector of Legal Metrology & Another (W.P. No.51116/2017 (GM-RES) and connected cases), it has been held that under Section 50(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, an appeal is available to an offender against any decision taken based on a reply submitted for offences punishable under Sections 27 to 39 of the said Act. It was further held that where the respondent-state, without passing an order, directly registers a complaint, setting criminal law into motion, such an action would be legally unsustainable.

11. In the present case, the licensing authority, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without passing an order, has directly registered a criminal case to prosecute him. Consequently, the filing of the complaint, culminating in the taking of cognizance, stands vitiated for non- compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2011 and the Rules of 2012.

12. Under these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

13. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER i) The petition is allowed ii) The impugned proceedings in CC.No.3538/2022 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, insofar as it relates to the accused No.12 is hereby quashed.

iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate such proceedings in accordance with law, after passing an order by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as enumerated in (5) of Rule 3-C of 2012.