Karnataka High Court
Halappa Lakshman Harogeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9356
CRL.P No. 101192 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101192 OF 2024
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
HALAPPA LAKSHMAN HAROGERI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591 317.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY SRI. SUJIT KULKARNI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: GEOLOGIST,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE,
MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
R/O: KUMARASWAMY EXTENSION,
BELAGAVI, PIN-590 001.
Digitally signed ... RESPONDENT
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
DHARWAD
BENCH CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
Date: 2025.08.01
12:04:48 +0530 11.02.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
RAIBAG FOR TAKING THE COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4(1)(1A), 21 AND 22 OF MMDR ACT,
1957 R/W SECTION 44(1) OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL
CONCESSION RULES, 1994, SO FAR AS PETITIONER ARE
CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9356
CRL.P No. 101192 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
Petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated
11.02.2022 passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Raibag, taking cognizance of offences punishable under
Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Section
44(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and
also to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.90/2022
pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Raibag.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for the respondent.
3. Based on the private complaint filed as provided
under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) by the Geologist, attached to
the Office of the Deputy Director of the Mines and Geology
Department, Belagavi, proceedings was initiated against the
petitioner herein and the learned Magistrate, vide the order
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9356
HC-KAR
impugned dated 11.02.2022, had taken cognizance of the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and
22 of the MMDR Act read with Section 44(1) of Karnataka Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. Being aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having relied
upon Section 22 and Section 30B of the MMDR Act, 1957,
submits that the Court of Magistrate had no power to entertain
the complaint and it is only the Special Court constituted under
Section 30B of the MMDR Act can entertain a private complaint
filed under the MMDR Act. He accordingly prays to allow the
petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the
petition submits that the Court of Magistrate is only a
committal court for the purpose of committing a complaint to
the Court of Special Judge since the MMDR Act does not provide
power to the Court of Special Judge to take cognizance of the
offences under the Act, without the complaint being committed
by the jurisdictional court of Magistrate. In support of her
argument, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9356
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar
vs. State of Karnataka1.
6. Section 22 and Section 30B of the MMDR Act reads
as follows:
22. Cognizance of offences.―No court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or
any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in
writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by
the Central Government or the State Government.
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
concurrence of the High Court.
(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.
(2021) 19 SCC 62
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9356
HC-KAR
(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."
7. As rightly contended by learned HCGP, the
provisions of the MMRD Act, which is a special enactment does
not specifically provide for the Special Court to take cognizance
of the offences punishable under the provisions of the Act,
without the complaint being committed to the said Court of
jurisdictional Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka having
referred to the provisions of the MMDR Act, has held that even
if the Special Court has taken cognizance of the offences
punishable under the MMDR Act, without there being a
committal order by the Court of Magistrate, the same is only an
illegality which can be cured. Section 193 of Cr.P.C., which
provides for cognizance of offence by the Court of sessions
states that no Court of sessions shall take cognizance of offence
as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been
committed to it by the Magistrate under this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9356
HC-KAR
8. Under the circumstances, since there is no provision
under the MMDR Act for the Special Court to take cognizance of
the offences punishable under the said Act, without the case
being committed to it by the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate
in view of Section 193 of Cr.P.C., the Court of jurisdictional
Magistrate is the committal Court and therefore, the complaint
filed in the present case before the Magistrate is maintainable.
However, the learned Magistrate could not have taken
cognizance of the alleged offences and on the other hand, on
receipt of the complaint he was supposed to commit the case to
the Special Court. Under the circumstances, the following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is partly allowed.
The order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Raibag, taking cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 22 of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read
with Section 44(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1994 is quashed and the learned Magistrate is directed
to commit the case to the Court of Special Judge as provided
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9356
HC-KAR
under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge shall
thereafter proceed in the case in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
RSH / CT:BCK
