Santosh Patil vs The State And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 6831 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                       BEFORE

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

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.201603/2021

BETWEEN:

SANTHOSH PATIL
S/O SURESH PATIL
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O AMBEWADI, TQ: BASAVAKALYAN
DIST: BIDAR - 585 401
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE THROUGH POLICE
   HULSOOR, POLICE STATION
   TQ: BASAVAKALYAN
   DIST. BIDAR - 585 416
   REP. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT
   OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
   DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 107

2. MOUNESHWAR
   S/O SHANKRAYYA SWAMY
   AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: REVENUE INSPECTOR
   HULSOOR DIVISION, R/O HULSOOR
   TQ: BASAVAKALYAN
   DIST: BIDAR - 585 416
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1)
                                  2



   THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET
No.51/2017 DATED 28.04.2017 FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 3(1), 43, 44 OF KARNATAKA MINERAL
CONSISTENT RULE 1994 AND SECTION 4(1), 4(1)(A) OF
MMDR ACT, 1957 AND SECTION 379 OF IPC ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.38/2016 AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The learned High Court Government Pleader is

directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the chargesheet

No.51/2017 dated 28.04.2017 filed by the first

respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Rules

3(1), 43, 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent

Rules 1994 (for short 'KMMC Rules') and Sections 4(1),

4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR' Act) and Section

379 of IPC arising out of Crime No.38/2016 of Hulsoor

Police Station and all further proceedings in

C.C.No.171/2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Basavakalyan.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the Revenue

Officer lodged complaint with the Police Inspector making

allegation of transporting of stones and alleged that the

petitioner has violated the provisions of KMMC Rules and

MMDR Act. On receipt of the complaint, Crime No.38/2016

is registered for the offences punishable under Rules 43,

44, 3(1) of KMMC Rules and Sections 4(1), 4(1A) of MMDR

Act and Section 379 of IPC. After registration of the case,

the police have investigated the matter and filed charge

sheet for the offences punishable under Rules 3(1), 43, 44

of the KMMC Rules and Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A) of MMDR

Act and Section 379 of IPC. The learned Magistrate after

receiving the entire records only took cognizance for the

offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and not

taken cognizance for the offences under the KMMC Rules

and MMDR Act. Hence, the petition is filed challenging the

order of taking cognizance.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that when the charge sheet is filed for the

offences punishable under Rules 3(1), 43, 44 of the KMMC

Rules and Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A) of MMDR Act, the learned

Magistrate ought not to have segregated the same and

ought not to have taken cognizance for the offence

punishable under Section 379 of IPC and ought to have

rejected the charge sheet. The learned counsel for the

petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar has directed

the office to return the complaint filed by the Circle

Inspector of Police for its presentation before the

jurisdictional Magistrate and also further ordered to return

the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate for disposal of the

matter in accordance with law as per the guidelines issued

by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of VIVEK vs STATE

OF KARNATAKA. Further directed that the learned

Magistrate would be at liberty to proceed in accordance

with law to dispose of the matter in respect of the offence

punishable under Section 379 of IPC. Thereafter, the

concerned jurisdictional Magistrate taken the cognizance

for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The

records reveals that the charge sheet is filed before the

Special Judge and the Special Judge in turn directed to

register the case and thereafter, vide order dated

23.12.2019 having perused the material directed the office

to return the complaint filed by the Circle Inspector of

Police for its presentation before the jurisdictional

Magistrate. That means, referring the office to return the

complaint filed by the Circle Inspector for its presentation

before the jurisdictional Magistrate and further directed to

return the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate for disposal.

Having read this order, it is clear that it is not directed to

return the complaint to the Circle Inspector but only

reference is made that return the complaint filed by the

Circle Inspector and directed the Magistrate to proceed

with the matter in accordance with law as per the

guidelines issued by this Court in the case referred supra.

Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the

petitioner that the complaint is returned to the Circle

Inspector and it is specific that the same is for

presentation before the jurisdictional Magistrate and

accordingly, the same was presented before the learned

Magistrate and the Magistrate was given the liberty to

proceed in the matter in accordance with law. On perusal

of the order dated 26.09.2020, the learned Magistrate also

only took the cognizance under Section 379 of IPC and in

respect of other offences under the Special Enactment, no

cognizance was taken since there is a bar under Section 22

of the Special Enactment. Hence, I do not find any error in

the order of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance

for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and

the same is in accordance with the judgment referred

supra as well as RAVI @ RAVINDRA AND ANOTHER vs

STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2019(3) KAR

L.J.33 wherein also this Court elaborately discussed about

the complaint, police report and also the persons who have

been authorised to file the complaint and also taken note

of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., and also observed that

whether the offences under MMDR Act are cognizable

offences under Section 21(6) of the MMDR Act and there is

no bar to file a charge sheet based on the complaint given

by the authorised officer who has been authorised under

the notification and in the case on hand also though charge

sheet is filed under the Special Enactment also, cognizance

is taken only for the IPC offence and the same is not

suffers from any infirmities in taking the cognizance.

Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the

petitioner's counsel.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB/SAN