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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20255

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
SUNIL B NAIK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 16888/2025



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17275 CRL.P No. 16888 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16888 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1. SUNIL B NAIK, S/O BILIYA KUPPA NAYAK,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O P H C ROAD, KOTEBAGILU BHATKALA TALUK, SHIRALI

UTTARA KANNADA DIST.

PIN-581 354.

(EX-MLA) BHATKALA … PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHETAN JADHAV., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P AND:

Location:

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY SNR. GEOLOGIST, UTTARA KANNADA, REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. JAGADISH B.N., ADDL. SPP)

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17275 CRL.P No. 16888 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.40268/2025 ARISING FROM PCR NO.16755/2025 PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO IS ACCUSED ON THE FILE OF THE PENDING BEFORE THE LD XLII ACJM, BENGALURU CITY FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 4(1), 4(1)(A) OF MMRD ACT AND RULE 3 AND 42 OF

KMMC RULES AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

The present petition has been filed calling in question

the validity of the proceedings in C.C.No.40268/2025, arising from P.C.R.No.16755/2025, pending before the XLII ACJM, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act') and Rules 3 and 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 1994 (KMMC Rules').

2. The facts relevant for this purpose would be

that petitioner was the owner of M/s. Siddartha Stone Crushing Industry, which was granted quarry lease for a

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17275 CRL.P No. 16888 of 2025

HC-KAR

period of 5 years to carry out quarrying and extraction of building stone in Sy. No. 1118/4A, measuring 20 guntas at

Bengre-2 Village, Bhatkala.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that Crime No.

11579 was registered alleging that the petitioner's company had transported minerals without following the statutory procedure. It is further submitted that forest Department had also registered a criminal case alleging violation of the provisions of MMDR Act and the allied

Rules.

4. It is submitted that there was a joint inspection

undertaken by the authorities of Mines and Geology as well as other departments and the officials had alleged that 5313 metric tonne of stone had been cut and removed and quarrying operations had continued beyond

the expiry of lease period.

5. It is made out from the facts that the complaint

under Section 200 Cr.P.C came to be filed alleging

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17275 CRL.P No. 16888 of 2025

HC-KAR

violations. Though initially cognizance was taken, the same came to be challenged in Crl.P.No.13098/2023, which petition came to be allowed as per the order of 06.03.2025, remitting the matter for reconsideration afresh and passing appropriate orders with due application

of mind.

6. It is noticed that the order of the Magistrate

taking cognizance with respect to offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act and Rule 44 of KMMC

Rules is called in question.

7. Sri. Satish M. Doddamani, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner for the present in the petition is that the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance with respect to offence under MMDR Act. It is submitted that the lease granted under the provisions of KMMC Rules is for a period of 5 years. If there is any violation, appropriate procedure is provided under Rule 44 of the

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17275 CRL.P No. 16888 of 2025

HC-KAR

Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, and no

recourse could be had to the provisions of the MMDR Act.

8. After hearing the matter for sometime, it is

not

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 Back to top