SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 4355

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
M/S BALAJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:SUBHASH J.BADDI ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners challenge the cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Sections 9(2)(vi), 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1), and 17(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2011”), and Rules 3-C(3) and 3-C(5) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2012”), which are punishable under Sections 16(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 2011.

2. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section

200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), alleging that the petitioners were granted a license for stone crushing and, during the subsistence of the license, they stacked minerals and carried out stone crushing without paying royalty to the government. Upon perusal of the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, prompting the petitioners to approach this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that stacking minerals without payment of royalty constitutes a contravention under Rule 3-C of the Rules of 2012. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3-C mandates that the competent authority must be given an opportunity to take action bef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top