Sri Nithyananda @ vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 1450 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Nithyananda @ vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2025

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                                 -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:27462
                                                       CRL.P No. 4193 of 2025


                    HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                              CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4193 OF 2025
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SRI NITHYANANDA @
                        NITHYANANDA POOJARY
                        S/O SUNDARA POOJARY
                        AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                        R/AT NO. 2-76
                        KUKKUJE VILLAGE AND POST
                        KARKALA TALUK
                        UDUPI DISTRICT 574 108
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed
by                 1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SHARADAVANI             BY AJEKAR POLICE STATION
B                       KARKALA TALUK
Location: High
Court of                UDUPI DISTRICT 571 4101
Karnataka               REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                   2.   SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR .R
                        PSI (LAW AND ORDER)
                        AJEKAR POLICE STATION
                        KARKALA TALUK
                        UDUPI DISTRICT 5714101
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
                   R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:27462
                                        CRL.P No. 4193 of 2025


HC-KAR




     CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR FILED IN CRIME NO.9/2025 DATED 09.03.2025 P/U/S
303(2),112 OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.4,4(A),21 OF MMDR ACT
1957 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AJEKAR POLICE VIDE
ANNEXURE B AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR


                         ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner - accused seeks quashing

of the FIR filed in Crime No.9 of 2025, dated 09.03.2025

punishable under Section 303(2), 112 The Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under Section 4, 4(A), 21

of the KMMC (Mines and Minerals Regulation of

Development) Act, 1957 by the first respondent Ajekar

Police and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the material

on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate

that the impugned proceedings are pending before the

NC: 2025:KHC:27462

HC-KAR

learned Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, Udupi,

jurisdictional Magistrate which is impermissible in law

since the private complaint has to be necessarily filed

before the Special Court constituted under Section 30(B)

of the MMDR Act and not before the learned Magistrate as

held by this Court in the case of Sundaresha H.K. and

another Vs. the State of Karnataka -

Crl.P.No.10780/2023 dated 19.04.2024 (Annexure D)

wherein it is held as under:

"Petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.136/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri arising out of PCR No.26/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1a), 9, 23C(1)(2) & 24(1) R/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, MMRD Act) .

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

NC: 2025:KHC:27462

HC-KAR

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no compliance of Section 30(B) of the MMRD Act in the present case. The private complaint is required to be filed in special courts and the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. He submits that this Court in identical circumstances in Crl.P.No.100525/2017 disposed of on 22.3.2017 has considered this aspect of the matter and has quashed the proceedings.

4 Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, however does not the dispute that there is no compliance of Section 30(B) of the MMRD Act in the present case.

5. The material on record would go to show that private complaint has been filed against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences before the court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences and thereafter case was registered against the petitioners in C.C.No.136/2023. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.100525/2017 at the paragraph Nos.3 and 4 has observed as follows:-

NC: 2025:KHC:27462

HC-KAR

"3. The provision under Section 30B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, ('the MMDR Act', for short) confers special status on the Special Courts and the Governments have to establish Special Courts for the purpose of trying the offences under the MMRD Act. There is no doubt so far as the above aspect is concerned. Section 30B of the MMDR Act reads as under:-

"30B.Constitution of Special Courts.-(1) The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences for contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section(1A) of section 4, constitute, by notification,

as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification.

(2) A Special Court shall consist of a Judge who shall be appointed by the State Government with the cocurrence of the High Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:27462

HC-KAR

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he is or has been a District and Sessions Judge.

(4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court may prefer an appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of such order."

4. In view of the above said provision, in order to deal with the matters under the above said enactment, the Government has issued notification constituting Special Courts for the purpose of dealing with the offences under the MMRD Act. As per Section 30B of the MMDR Act, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of every district have been designated as the Special Judge. In view of Section 30B of the MMDR Act and the notification issued, as noted above, it is crystal clear that the Judicial Magistrates of First Class, have no right to entertain any complaint where the allegations fall under the MMDR Act or the Rules thereunder and

NC: 2025:KHC:27462

HC-KAR

with allied offences. The factual matrix of this case shows the Geologist- respondent No.3 ha filed a private complaint before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Ranebennur, against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/S 4(1), 4(1-A) and 21 of MMRD Act, 1957 Rules 3(1), 36, 42, 44(1) of KMMCR Rules, 1994 and under Rules 3-B and 3-C of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 read with Section 16(1) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Ranebennur, after receiving the complaint ha taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused vide orders dated 02.11.2016 by regitering a Criminal Case in C.C. No. 692/2016. The said registration of the case in C.C. No. 692/2016. The said registration of the case taking of cognizance and issuing of process is without jurisdiction by the Magistrate. In this background, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned JMFC could not have entertained the complaint, taken

NC: 2025:KHC:27462

HC-KAR

cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the said order requires to be quashed. The complaint averments discloses the specific allegations of petitioners having committed offences under Sections 4(1), 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, under Section 3(1), 36, 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, under Section 3(1), 6-A(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, and under Section 3B and 3C of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012."

6. Under the circumstances, the impugned criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Sringeri for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1a), 9, 23C(1)(2) & 24(1) R/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 cannot be sustained.

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.136/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri arising out of PCR No.26/2023

NC: 2025:KHC:27462

HC-KAR

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1a), 9, 23C(1)(2) & 24(1) R/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is hereby quashed"

4. The issue in controversy involved in the present

petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment

of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sundaresha's

case supra and consequently, the impugned proceedings

deserve to be quashed.

5. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime

No.9/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM,

Karkala, Udupi, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is

hereby quashed.

Sd/-

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

YKL