1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

WRIT PETITION No.14447/2020

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY

S/O. LATE VENKATARAMA REDDY,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

R/AT NALLAGUTLAHALLI VILLAGE,

CHINTHAMANI TOWN,

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125

2. SRI SRIRAMA

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

R/AT DWAMALAPALLIGADDA VILLAGE,

CHINTHAMANI TOWN,

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GOVINDARAJU K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,

BATLAHALLI POLICE STATION,

CHINTHAMANI,

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU-560 001.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF CC.NO.125/2020 PENDING ON THE

FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTHAMANI VIDE

ANNEX-C FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER RULE 44 OF

KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1994 AND

SECTION 21 OF MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND

DEVELOPMENT

ACT)

1957

INITIATED

AGAINST

THE

PETITIONER.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that the complaint is

filed by the Police Sub Inspector stating that he has received the

credible information that sand has been loaded in the Tractor at

Government lake, Gudarlahalli Village which comes under the

jurisdiction of the complainant-Police and accordingly, he rushed

to the place where the sand is being loaded into the two

Tractors. When the driver and other workers have seen the

police jeep and officials, they ran away from the place. The

complainant had seized the said Tractor and drawn the mahazar.

3

Thereafter, the complaint has been filed under Section 200 of

Cr.P.C. read with Section 22 of Mines and Minerals Regulation of

Development Act, 1957 (for short ‘the MMRD Act’) for the

offences committed under Rules 3(1), 42, 43, 43-A of Karnataka

Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules’) and

Sections 4(1), 4 (1-A) of the MMRD Act and offences punishable

under Rule 44 of the Rules and Section 21 of the MMRD Act.

3.

The Magistrate took the cognizance and issued the

process against the petitioners and hence, the present petition is

filed seeking the relief of quashing of taking cognizance in

C.C.No.125/2020. The grounds urged in the petition is that the

initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an

abuse of process of law and the same is against the provision of

Section 22 of the MMRD Act, which bars the taking of cognizance

and registering the case by the Sub Inspector of Police, who

being the complainant himself, is in violation of provisions

mandated under Section 22 of the MMRD Act. Hence, it requires

interference of this Court.

4

4.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that no doubt

there is a bar under Section 22 of the MMRD Act for taking

cognizance, but in the case on hand, a private complaint has

been filed by the Sub Inspector of Police and he is an authorized

person to file the complaint. The Magistrate has applied his mind

while taking the cognizance and hence, does not require any

interference of this Court.

5.

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel

for the petitioners and also the learned High Court Government

Pleader for State and so also on perusal of the records, it

discloses that the Sub Inspector of Police had filed the complaint

before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) an