1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100715/2019

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI. KUSHA KUMAR NAIK,

SON OF R. MUNIYA NAIK,

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

2.

SRI. R. MUNIYA NAIK,

SON OF LATE RAMA NAIK,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

3.

SRI. RAVI NAIK,

SON OF R. MUNIYA NAIK,

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

4.

SRI. JAYA NAIK,

SON OF R. MUNIYA NAIK,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

5.

SRI. LAVA NAIK,

SON OF R. MUNIYA NAIK,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

CHIKKAJOGIHALLI THANDA,

KUDLIGI TALUK,

BALLARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

2

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION,

HONSAHALLI, KUDLIGI TALUK-583135,

BALLARI DISTRICT.

2.

THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,

KUDLIGI CIRCLE, KUDLIGI TALUK,

BALLARI DISTRICT - 583135

... RESPONDENTS

(SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS

CRIMINAL

PETITION

IS

FILED

UNDER

SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE

ENTIRE

PROCEEDINGS

IN

CRIME

NO.23/2019

OF

RESPONDENT

NO.1

HOSAHALLI

POLICE

STATION,

HOSAHALLI, KUDLIGI TALUK, FOR THE OFFENCES

PUNISHALBE

UNDER

SECTION

31R(12),

42

OF

KARNATAKA MINERAL CONISIONS RULES, 1994 AND

SECTION 379 OF IPC, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF

THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC

COURT, KUDLIGI.

THIS

CRIMINAL

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

ORDERS

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard

the

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners and the learned HCGP for the

respondents.

2.

This petition is filed seeking to quash

the FIR and complaint dated 06.03.2019 in

3

Crime No.23/2019 of Hosahalli police station,

Kudligi taluka, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 31-R(12) and 42 of

Karnataka

Minor Mineral

Concession

Rules,

1994 and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code,

against the petitioners. The said FIR has been

registered on the information filed by CPI

Kudligi Cricle. Section 22 of Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act (for short

‘the

MMDR

Act’),

deals

with

taking

of

cognizance of offence. Section 22 of MMDR Act,

reads thus;

“22. Cognizance of offences- No court

shall

take

cognizance

of

any

offence

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.”

4

3.

As per Section 22 of 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 Vs.

The State of Karnataka, by Kunigal Police

Station and another, reported in ILR 2018

KAR 1497 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

5

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