[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Basanagouda S/O Mallanagouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
CRL.P No. 103445 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103445 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
BASANAGOUDA S/O MALLANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAKKARAGOLA VILLAGE 583227
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR
GANGAVATHI TOWN P.S.
KOPPAL DIST.
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING
DHARWAD 580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
KATTIMANI
Date: 2026.02.18
13:04:12 +0530 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2022 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, SITTING AT
GANGAVATHI IN CRIMINAL RP NO.60/2021 AND THE ORDER DATED
14.12.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 239 OF
CR.P.C., IN CC NO.1041/2019 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL
PETITION AND DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 406 AND 420 R/W 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY
GANGAVATI TOWN P.S. BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
CRL.P No. 103445 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri. K. S. Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. Petitioner is the accused No.1 in C.C.
No.1041/2019, wherein he has been charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18601.
3. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences alleged against the petitioner and issued process.
4. Petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and
filed an application under Section 229 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, seeking discharge.
5. Prosecution opposed the same.
6. Learned Trial Magistrate on due consideration of
the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the
application.
For short, 'IPC'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed
a revision petition before the District Court in Criminal
Revision Petition No.60/2021. The learned District Judge in
the First Appellate Court after considering the rival
contentions of the parties, dismissed the revision petition
inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.18 to 20 as under:
"18. The crux of the case is that the
Accused No.2 while surrendering the Bulk Permit
as per his aforesaid Letter dated 11/01/2019
which is admittedly before the expiry of the lease
period has not surrendered the Bulk Permit and is
said to have issued Permits from the house of
Revision Petitioner (Accused No.1) in pursuance of
which it is alleged that the Revision Petitioner
(Accused No.1) in hand in glow with Accused No.2
have committed the aforesaid offences. Here one
fails to understand that when Accused No.2 has
surrendered the permission granted to him for
lifting Sand as aforesaid on account of the
inconvenience faced by him as stated in his Letter
dated 11/01/2019, then why he has not chosen to
surrender the Bulk Permit issued to him before the
expiry of the Lease period and seek re-validation
of the same as provided under Rule 42(6) of the
Karnataka Minor Minerals Rules 1994 is not known
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
for the reasons best known to Accused Nos.1 & 2
only by contending that there is no law that along
with the Application for surrendering the Bulk
Permit to the Mines & Geology Department as
contended by him in Ground No.17 of his Revision
Petition which indicates that the Revision
Petitioner (Accused No.1) and Accused No.2 by
surrendering the permission for lifting Sand as per
the Letter dated 11/01/2019 intend to retain the
Bulk Permits by issuing the same from
10/01/2019 to 12/01/2019 as stated in the
Complaint dated 22/01/2019 which gives an
indication that they are blowing both hot & cold at
the same time which cannot be accepted at this
stage of the case,
19. Hence as rightly argued by the learned
P.P that when the Govt. of Karnataka has
entrusted the Govt.property of lifting Sand in the
aforesaid 12.08 acres of Sy. No.74, 73, 95, 96, 93
& 94 of Udhihal Village as per the aforesaid Letter
dated 18/07/2017 of Senior Geologist, Koppal and
as per the Quarrying Lease/License Deed executed
by the Revision Petitioner (Accused Nos.1 and 2)
as aforesaid in pursuance of which the Revision
Petitioner (Accused No.2) ought to have
surrendered the Bulk Permits and could not have
issued the permits from 10/01/2019 to
12/01/2019 from the house of Accused No.1
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
instead of his Stock yard as stated in the
Complaint dated 22/01/2019 of CW-1 as no fresh
liability could have accrued to Revision Petitioner
(Accused No.2) from the date of surrender of
permission as per the aforesaid Letter dated
11/01/2019 of Accused No.2 as provided under
Clause-3 of PART VIII of THE COVENANTS OF
THE STATE GOVERNMENT as per the aforesaid
Quarrying Lease/Licence Deed dated 18-07-
2017 which reads as under;
"3. Liberty to surrender this
lease/licence.
The lessee/licensee shall be at
liberty to surrender this lease/licence by
giving notice of not less than three
months in writing to the Competent
Authority and no fresh liability shall
accrue to the lessee/licensee from the
date of such surrender provided that all
the Government dues on rents, royalties
and taxes shall be declared off arising
upon the date of surrender."
20. By looking to the Complaint allegations
made by CW-1 in the Complaint dated
22/01/2019 of the Permits issued as per Receipt
Nos. 22163734 & 22163738 from 10/01/2019 to
12/01/2019 in the house of Revision
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
Petitioner/Accused No.1 held in the name of
Accused No.2 which have not been issued from his
Stock yard coupled with the Seizure Panchanama
dated 21/01/2019 conducted by CW-2 in the
presence of CW-3 & 4 along with the Letter dated
11/01/2019 of Revision Petitioner (Accused No.2)
addressed to Senior Geologist of Koppal District
for surrendering the permission to lift the Sand
and other Charge Sheet materials placed by the
Prosecution prima facie reveals of the entrustment
of the Govt. property i.e., Sand to be lifted from
the aforesaid area of 12 acres 08 guntas in the
aforesaid survey numbers to Accused No.2 being
misappropriated and having practiced deception in
cheating the Govt. of Karnataka by the Revision
Petitioner (Accused No.1) and Accused No.2
pursuant to which there are prima facie materials
placed by the Prosecution to frame charges for the
aforesaid offences against Accused Nos. 1 & 2 as
the Court has to proceed on the assumption that
the Charge Sheet materials placed on record by
the Prosecution against Revision Petitioner
(Accused No.2) and Accused No.1 are true as per
the decision reported in (2014) 11 Supreme
Court Cases 709 (State of Tamil Nadu by
Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption V/s. N.Suresh Rajan & Others).
On a meticulous analysis of the entire Charge
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
Sheet materials in C.C.No.1041/2019 and the
Impugned Order dated 14/12/2021 passed by the
Trial Court under Revision, I am of the firm view
that no error has been committed by the Trial
Court in holding that the Prosecution/Complainant
has placed prima facie sufficient materials for
holding trial against the Accused Nos. 1 & 2 for
having committed the alleged offences by
rejecting the contentions of Revision Petitioner
(Accused No.1). Hence the aforesaid Impugned
Order of the Trial Court under Revision does not
warrants interference of any kind at the hands of
this Court as argued by the learned Advocate for
Revision Petitioner (Accused No.2) as contended
by him in the Grounds of his Revision Petition
which do not hold any water and the same are
rejected by affirming the aforesaid Impugned
Order of the Trial Court by dismissing the Crl.
Revision Petition in the ends of justice as rightly
argued by the learned P.P. Hence, in view of the
aforesaid discussions made be me, I answer point
No.1 in the Negative."
8. Being further aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner being the accused No.1 has filed the present
revision petition on the following grounds:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
"It is submitted that under Section 22 of the
Minor Minerals (Development & Regin) Act,
1957, stipulates that No Court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under
this Act, or rules made there under except
upon complaint in writing by a person
authorized in this behalf by the Central or
state Government and therefore, in the
case on hand it is the complaint given to
the Police and charge sheet is filed which is
vitiated in law and in view of that the
orders impugned in this Petition are
unsustainable in law and liable to be
quashed.
That under the provisions of M.M.R.D. Act
there is no mandate to keep the permit
book in the stock yard but only thing is the
sand should not be transported without
permit. Therefore the theory of prosecution
that the permits were issued in the house
of the petitioner not in the sand yard is
totally illegal and to file a case the
respondent with false allegations registered
the crime and the courts below without
proper consideration passed the impugned
order which is liable to be quashed.
That in the case on hand the complaint
filed by the informant with the respondent
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
police but as per Sec. 22 of M.M.R.D. Act
1957 the written complaint should be filed
before the jurisdictional Court for
contravention of the above act and unless
such complaint is lodged the court has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offences under the act and the courts
below simply rejected the application same
is ended in miscarriage of justice.
That the allegations made in the complaint
do not attracts the ingredients of Sec. 406
and 420 IPC and therefore the reasons
assigned by the courts below are perverse,
arbitrary and liable to be rejected.
That the trial court failed to appreciate the
fact that the alleged inspection and drawing
up of Mahazar stated to have been carried
by the Village Accountant and Revenue
Inspector and therefore the very seizure
Mahazar is contrary to the mandate of Sec.
100 of Cr. P.C.
That the learned Addl. District Judge
instead of considering the vital points
raised by the petitioner went on observing
that the reliability or acceptability has to be
considered at the stage of trial and
therefore rejected the revision but the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
important point for consideration is
whether the launching of prosecution
against the petitioner is in accordance with
the act has not been looked into and
therefore the reasons recorded by the
District judge are not sound and proper
which are liable to be quashed.
Viewed from any angle the orders
impugned in the petition passed are
unsustainable in law and liable to be
quashed."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the
grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that
the petitioner has got nothing to do with the alleged
offences and therefore, continuation of the criminal case as
against the petitioner in the absence of necessary
ingredients to attract the offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, is nothing but abuse of
process of law and sought for quashing the pending
proceedings.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent-State would contend that the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
grounds urged in the revision petition are more in the
nature of the defense which has to be established during
the trial after the prosecution examines its witnesses.
11. She would further contend that admittedly there
is a voluntary statement of the accused after his arrest and
that would contradict the grounds now argued before this
Court and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision
petition.
12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
evident that, the Investigation Agency has collected the
necessary documents from the custody of the accused No.2
and was holding the Bulk Permit for Sand mining did not
surrender the same after the expiry of the lease.
14. On the contrary, prima facie there is a tacit
understanding between the present petitioner and accused
No.2 whereby the Bulk Permit of accused No.2 said to have
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
been used by the petitioner herein for the purpose of mining
the Sand which is per-se illegal.
15. Therefore, such disputed questions cannot be
decided by this Court at the time of considering the
dismissal of the discharge application by holding a mini trial.
16. Moreover, following the principles of law
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi2, prosecution papers
alone to be considered to find out whether there is a prima
facie material to proceed with the criminal case or not.
17. In the case on hand, taking note of the materials
collected by the Investigation Agency would clearly show
that even after the expiry of the lease, accused No.2 did not
surrender the Bulk Permit, which resulted in further mining
of the Sand.
(2005) 1 SCC 568
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2269
HC-KAR
18. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is meritless and
thereby dismissed.
(ii) It is made clear that all the
contentions are kept open to be
urged before the Trial Magistrate in
accordance with law.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SMM / CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 67
