1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101398/2021

BETWEEN:

SRI. DILEEPKUMAR CHANDREGOWDA

AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. OWNER/ DRIVER

R/O.293 RAJESHWARI NAGAR

NEAR WATER TANK,

DOMBARHALLI MADANAYAKANAHALLI

MADAVARA DASANAPURA HOBLI

BENGALURU-30

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY KUKNOOR POLICE STATION,

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD

2 . M.NAGAREDDY

AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. POLICE OFFICER,

TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S 482 OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION

OF FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 07/07/2021 IN

2

CRIME NO.49/2021 OF KUKNOOR POLICE FOR

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.21(1), 21(2) OF

MINES

AND

MINERALS

REGULATION

OF

DEVELOPMENT ACT-1957 AND SEC.42, 43 AND 44

OF

KARNATAKA

MINOR

MINERAL

CONSISTENT

RULE-1994 AND 379 OF IPC AS AGAINST THE

PETITIONER.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the

FIR and the complaint dated 07.07.2021 in Crime

No.49/2021 of Kuknoor Police Station registered for

the offences punishable under Section 21(1) and

21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the

8MMDR Act', for brevity) and Rules 42, 43 and 44 of

the Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rules, 1994

(hereinafter referred to as the 8KMMC Rules9, for

3

brevity) and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code as

against the petitioner.

2.

The said FIR has been registered on the

information filed by the CPI, Yalaburga Circle. Section

22 of the MMDR Act deals with taking of 8Cognizance

of Offence9. Section 22 of the MMDR Act reads thus:

< 22. Cognizance of Offences.- No court shall

take cognizance of any offences punishable under this

Act or any rules made thereunder except upon

complaint in writing made by a person authorized in

this behalf by the Central Government or the State

Government.=

3. As per Section 22 of the MMDR Act, the Court

can take cognizance of any offence under MMDR Act

or KMMC Rules made thereunder only upon the

complaint in writing made by a person authorized in

this behalf by the Central Government or the State

Government. This Court in the case of Vivek and

another v. The State of Karnataka, by Kunigal Police

Station and Another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1497

4

has considered regarding taking of cognizance of the

offence under MMDR Act and issued the following

Guidelines:

< GUIDELINES:

(1) The Special Court constituted under the MMDR

Act, has no jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of

the offences under the MMDR Act and KMMC Rules,

even along with any other penal offences unless the

case is committed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It

is made clear that the Special Court has no

jurisdiction to receive a final report from the Police

u/s.173 of Cr.P.C. or to receive any private

complaint under the MMDR Act, directly from the

authorized officer and take cognizance of the

offences either under the MMDR Act or any other

penal laws. If any such complaint is erroneously

received and pending, the Special court has to follow

the procedure as contemplated under Section 201 of

Cr.PC. and return the complaint for presentation to

the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect.

Likewise if any police report is received the same has

to be transferred to the jurisdictional Magistrate

invoking the provisions under Section 228 (1) (a) of

Cr.PC for appropriate action.

(2) The Police cannot file a final report under

Section 173 of Cr.PC for the offences under the

MMDR Act & KMMC Rules either to the jurisdic