Sri Chandrashekara Reddy vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 86 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 4TH 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:

                           ORDER

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.

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. 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.) and JMFC, Chinthamani. On

perusal of the entire complaint, a specific allegation is made

against these petitioners that they have indulged in committing

the theft of sand and transporting the same in a Tractor and the

case has been registered against them based on the private

complaint filed by the authorized person. The very contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Police Sub

Inspector has filed the complaint and the proceedings cannot be

initiated by the police. In support of the contention, learned

counsel also relied upon the order passed in

W.P.No.11689/2020 (GM-RES) in Ramappa v. State of

Karnataka. Learned counsel referring to this judgment would

submit that this Court had already set aside the initiation of the

proceedings.

6. Having perused the order of this Court, this Court

had not referred the notification dated 21.01.2014 which confers

the power to the Sub Inspector of Police to file the complaint

within his jurisdiction and he is an authorized person to file the

complaint before the jurisdictional Court. The said notification

has not been brought to the notice of this Court and the

Coordinate Bench had passed the order without referring to the

notification dated 21.01.2014.

7. Having considered the material on record, a private

complaint has been filed by the authorized person, who is the

Sub Inspector of Police and he has filed the complaint within his

jurisdiction. Learned Magistrate, has discussed in detail while

taking cognizance and issued the process against the accused.

When such being the case and the Magistrate has applied his

mind with regard to the allegation made in the complaint and

complaint is also filed by the authorized person invoking the

notification referred supra, I do not find any illegality committed

by the Magistrate in issuing the process against the petitioners.

The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the complainant is not an authorized person and he is not

permitted to file the complaint and the further contention that

the police cannot initiate the proceedings, cannot be accepted.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:-

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PYR