Karnataka High Court
Sri. S K Suresha vs State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35280
CRL.P No. 10647 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10647 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. S K SURESHA
S/O KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT SY NO.6
GADIRANGAPURA VILLAGE
TARIKERE TALUK
CHICKMANGALURU - 577228
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHAVENDRA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY AJJAMPURA POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560 001
2. DR. M J MAHESH
S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
WORKING AS GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT FO MINES AND GEOLOGY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35280
CRL.P No. 10647 of 2022
CHICKMAGALUR RAMESHWAR NAGAR
CHICKMAGALUR 577228
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.53/2013 NOW IN
C.C.NO.727/2017 VIDE ANNEXUR-A FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT/AJJAMPURA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
43, 44 OF KMCR ACT AND SEC.379 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the State.
2. This petition is filed seeking the relief to quash
the proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on
the complaint. The police have registered the case and
investigated the matter and filed the B-report. Against the
B-report, protest memo was filed and the Magistrate
NC: 2023:KHC:35280
CRL.P No. 10647 of 2022
having re-assessed the material on record and after
recording the sworn statement of the complainant and
other witnesses, taken the cognizance and the same was
challenged before the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Chikkamagaluru by filing Crl.R.P.No.49/2021 and
the same was dismissed and hence, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing this petition.
3. The main contention of the petitioner that the
police have no authority to register any criminal case
against the petitioner. Apart from that after the
investigation, the police have filed the B-report, however,
the Magistrate committed an error in taking the
cognizance against the petitioner even though it is bad
under law and the very initiation of criminal proceedings is
not permitted under the law. In support of the argument
of the counsel, he relies upon the judgment of this Court
in the case of RAVI VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in 2019(3) KLJ 33 and contended that the said
NC: 2023:KHC:35280
CRL.P No. 10647 of 2022
judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Thus,
the police cannot register the case. Only the concerned
authority can file a private complaint and based on that
private complaint, the Court can proceed against the
petitioner hence, very initiation of proceedings against the
petitioner by the police is bad in law. Thus, it requires
interference.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP would vehemently
contend that though the police have registered the case
i.e., FIR, investigated the matter and filed the B-report
and against the B-report, protest memo was filed and
witnesses were also examined and thereafter, the Trial
Court proceeded to take the cognizance and hence, the
very contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
on record, it is clear that the police have registered the
case in Cr.No.53/2013, thereafter investigated the matter
NC: 2023:KHC:35280
CRL.P No. 10647 of 2022
and filed the B-report. Hence, no dispute with regard to
filing of B-report, filing of protest memo and examination
of the witnesses. But the very initiation of criminal case by
the police by filing FIR is bad in law when the police have
no authority to do the same since there is a bar under the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957') and under Section 21(6)
of the Act of 1957 is clear that it is a cognizable offence
and cognizance has to be taken by the Court based on the
private complaint and not the complaint by the police.
The said fact and law has been elaborately considered by
this Court in the judgment referred by the counsel for the
petitioner and hence, the very initiation of criminal
proceeding against the petitioner by the police is bad in
law. Thus, the petitioner has made out the case to quash
the proceedings initiated against him. The very contention
of the counsel appearing for the State that the cognizance
was taken rejecting the B-report after examination of the
witnesses but the said procedure is also bad in law since
the same is not under the provisions of the Act of 1957
NC: 2023:KHC:35280
CRL.P No. 10647 of 2022
and hence, the very contention of the counsel for the
State cannot be accepted and examination of witnesses
after filing of 'B' report is also proceedings initiated by the
police and no separate private complaint is filed by the
concerned authority.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The proceedings initiated against the petitioner by
filing the FIR in Cr.No.53/2013 (C.C.No.727/2017) by the
Ajjampura Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 43 and 44 of KMCR Act and Section 379 of IPC is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
