Karnataka High Court

Sri. Trivenu vs The State By on 9 March, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                            BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5930 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI. TRIVENU
S/O JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOSAGUTTI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
SOMAWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 235.
                                                  ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GOPAL GOWDA H.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE BY
STATION HOUSE OFFICE
KIKKERI POLICE STATION,
K.R.PETE, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
                                             ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.J.ROHITH, HCGP)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT
FIRST    INFORMATION    REPORT      AND   ENTIRE  CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.632/2014, REGISTERED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KRISHNARAJAPET, AT
THE INSTANCE OF RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 42,
44, OF KMMCR AND SEC.4(1), 4(1a)-21 OF MMRD ACT.
                                 2



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

                            ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in C.C.No.632/2014 registered for offences

punishable under Sections 42, 44 of the Karnataka Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 & Sections 4(1) , 4(1a) and 21 of

the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,

1957.

2. Heard Sri.Gopala Gowda.H.K., learned counsel

appearing for petitioner and Sri.B.J.Rohith, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent.

3. The submissions made by the petitioner in the case at

hand is that the complainant after receiving the information of

commission of a cognizable offence by his informer has to

then record statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. None

of these procedures have been followed. The other submission

that is made is that the criminal law should have been set in

motion by registration of a complaint before the jurisdictional

Magistrate and not an FIR as is done in the case at hand.

4. It is not in dispute that both the issues stand covered by

the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

the case of VIVEK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, wherein this

Court hold as follows:

"37. Before concluding even at the cost of repetition, I, feel it just and necessary to summarize the guidelines to be born in mind by the police, Magistrates and the special Courts, and the same are briefly enumerated hereunder.

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.PC or to receive any private complaint under the MMRD Act, directly from the authorized officer and take cognizance of the offences either under the MMRD Act or any other penal laws. If any

Crl.P.No.6279/2017 dated 15.11.2017

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. Like wise if any police report is received the same has to be transferred to the jurisdictional Magistrate invoking the provisions under section 228 (1) (a) of Cr.PC for appropriate action.

(2) The Police cannot file a final report under section 173 of Cr.PC for the offences under the MMRD Act & KMMC Rules either to the jurisdictional JMFC Court or to the Special Court. However, they can file the report for the offences under the IPC or any other penal law for the time being in force before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

(3) The jurisdictional Magistrate has no jurisdiction or power to take cognizance for the offence punishable under the MMDR Act & KMMC Rules on the basis of any Police report u/s.173 of Cr.PC. However, if any penal provisions under the IPC or any other penal laws are available in the final report of the police, if there is no other legal bar; the Magistrate can take cognizance of such offences under the IPC or other penal laws which he is empowered, except for the offences under MMDR Act & KMMC Rules.

(4) A private complaint is only contemplated under the MMDR Act & KMMC Rules and thus it has to be filed u/s.22 of the Act by the competent authorized officer under the MMRD Act & KMMC Rules. Even if other offences under any other penal laws, are also included along with offences under MMDR Act and Rules, the jurisdictional Magistrate, has to take cognizance of the offences under MMDR Act & KMMC Rules only on the basis of the private complaint even though other penal laws are also invoked by the authorized officer and after

compliance of relevant provisions of Cr.PC, the Magistrate has to commit the entire case to the Special Court for trial.

(5) The Special Court gets jurisdiction to try the offences under the MMRD Act & KMMC Rules there under including any other offences under any other penal laws for the time being in force only after the case is committed to it for trial by the jurisdictional Magistrate.

(6) If the authorized officer under section 22 of the MMDR Act, has filed a private complaint, and the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same, and during the course of inquiry or trial of private complaint, it is made to appear to the Magistrate that an investigation by the police in the same case is pending in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of inquiry or trial held by him then the Magistrate has to stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for the report on the matter from the police, and there after commit both the cases to the special court, for trial.

(7) If the police have already filed the report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. for the offences under the MMRD Act and also under Other penal laws, like I.P.C. Motor vehicles Act or under any other penal law for the time being in force where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under other Penal laws, during inquiry or trial of such case, if any Private complaint is filed as per section 22 of the said Act, by the authorized officer for the offences under MMDR act and Rules arising out of same incident, the Magistrate shall stay all further proceedings, and commit both the cases to the special court for trial of both the cases, as per section 323 of Criminal Procedure Code, after following the procedure as contemplated under section 202 (2) of Cr.PC.

(8) The Special Court on receipt of the cases as noted at guidelines 6 and 7, relating to the same incident, as the case may be has to try both the cases together, in accordance with law, adopting the procedure of a sessions trial, in view of the powers vested as per section 30 C of MMDR Act.

(9) The provisions and powers of the Magistrate with regard to the bail and also with regard to the interim custody of the seized properties can be exercised by the Magistrate during the inquiry till the committal of the case to the Special Court.

(10) After committal of the case, the Special Court being the trial Court shall have all the powers of the Sessions Court regarding bail and disposal of the properties involved in the case, as provided under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

38. The petition is allowed. The proceedings pending before the Special Court in Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in Special CC No.64/2017 and all further proceedings thereon which are registered for the offence punishable u/s.379 of IPC and under section 21(1) of MMDR Act, and under sections 3, 181, 192(A) and 196 of the IMV Act, are hereby quashed."

In the light of the afore-quoted order of the Co-ordinate

Bench order of this Court, I pass the following: