IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH 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)

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 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 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 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 noticed that the order passed is with application of mind wherein the Court has perused the documents and materials and taken cognizance with respect to the offences under Section 21 of the MMDR Act and Rule 44 of the KMMC Rules. The Magistrate has referred to the complaints given by the G