Karnataka High Court
Mr S Nijalinge Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1015 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MR. S. NIJALINGE GOWDA
S/O LAT ESHIVALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER
M/S. R.C.INDIA, NO.179, 1ST FLOOR
6TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN
CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SATHNUR POLICE STATION
KANAKAPURA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. WILLIAM
S/O LATE MR DEVARAJU
AGED 47 YEARS
INCHARGE REVENUE INSPECTOR
SATHNUR HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMNAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1
R-2 - SERVED)
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 10.11.2016
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. C.J., AND J.M.F.C., KANAKAPURA IN
C.C.NO. 861/2016 THEREBY TAKING CONGNIZANCE AGAINST THE
ACCUSED/PETR. HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 21, 4, 4(1A) OF
THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION ) ACT,
1957, AND SEC.379, 467 OF IPC AND SEC.94 (3) OF KARNATAKA
LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.861/2016 BY THE I ADDL. C.J.,
AND J.M.F.C., KANAKAPURA THEREON AS AGAINST THE PETR, -
FIRM/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.861/2016 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, wherein he has been arrayed as accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 21, 4, 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Sections 379, 467 of IPC and Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Managing partner in M/s. R.C. India, a -3- partnership firm. On 12.10.1999, a quarrying lease was issued in favour of the said R.C. India by the State Government in respect of land bearing Sy.No.53 of Achlu village, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, for a period of 10 years. Subsequently, exercising powers under Rule 9 (2A) of the Karnataka Mines and Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1994 (for short "the Rules"), working permission was issued in favour of the said Firm till 17.05.2012. Meanwhile, since the lease was due to expire on 11.10.2009, the said Firm made an application seeking renewal of lease and since the said application was not disposed of by the State Government, the lease period was deemed to have been extended by virtue of Rule 9 (2A) of the Rules. Further, the said Firm also obtained environmental clearance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite the aforesaid Firm being entitled to the benefit of deemed renewal of the lease, respondent No.2 - Complainant lodged a complaint with respondent No.1 - police alleging that the said Firm was guilty of the aforesaid offences. -4- Pursuant thereto, an FIR was registered against the said Firm for the alleged offences.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to amendment to the aforesaid Rules, there was correspondence between the said Firm and the State Government. Thereafter, by order dated 16.08.2012, the State Government extended the period of lease in favour of the said Firm for a period of 10 years with effect from 12.10.2009. Consequent to the said renewal, the said Firm is deemed to have a valid lease for a period of 10 years from 12.10.2009, which includes the year 2012 during which the offences are alleged to have been committed. It is therefore contended that by virtue of both the deemed renewal in favour of M/s.R.C. India as well as the subsequent renewal of lease for a period that extended from 1999 to 2019, the said Firm cannot be said to have committed the aforesaid offences in the year 2012 and as such, the proceedings in C.C.No.861/2016 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. -5-
6. The respondent No.2 - complainant having been served with notice of the present petition, he has chosen to remain unrepresented.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 would submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record indicates that the petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s. R.C. India, a partnership Firm. On 26.07.1999, a quarrying lease (Annexure-C) was issued in favour of the said M/s.R.C. India by the State Government in respect of land bearing Sy.No.53 of Achlu village, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, for a period of 10 years. Subsequently, exercising powers under Rule 9 (2A) of the Rules, working permission was issued in favour of the said Firm till 17.05.2012. Meanwhile, since the lease was due to expire on 11.10.2009, the said Firm made an application -6- seeking renewal of lease and since the said application was not disposed of by the State Government, the lease period was deemed to have been extended by virtue of Rule 9 (2A) of the Rules. Further, the said Firm also obtained environmental clearance on 19.07.2012 (Annexure-E).
10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the aforesaid Firm became entitled to the benefit of deemed renewal of the lease as contemplated under Rule 9 (2A) of the Rules and the lease in favour of the Firm stood extended till the State Government passed appropriate orders on the renewal application, in the light of the undisputed fact that no orders were passed by the State Government until 16.08.2012, the said Firm, M/s. R.C. India became entitled to deemed renewal till the said date which included the year 2012 during which the said Firm is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. In other words, in the year 2012, it cannot be said that M/s. R.C. India were guilty of the aforesaid offences since they had the benefit of deemed renewal of lease and consequently, the lease in their favour was valid and -7- subsisting. Viewed from this angle, the instant proceedings for the alleged offences deserve to be quashed.
11. Learned counsel is also correct in submitting that subsequently by order dated 16.08.2012 (Annexure-H1), the State Government extended the period of lease in favour of the said Firm for a period of 10 years with effect from 12.10.2009. Consequent to the said renewal, the said Firm is deemed to have a valid lease for a period of 10 years from 12.10.2009, which includes the year 2012 during which the offences are alleged to have been committed. It is therefore clear that by virtue of the subsequent renewal of lease for a period that extended from 2009 to 2019, the lease in favour of M/s. R.C. India was valid and subsisting during the year 2012 and the said Firm cannot be said to have committed the aforesaid offences in the year 2012 and as such, the proceedings in C.C.No.861/2016 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura against the petitioner deserve to be quashed on this ground also.
-8-
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I proceed to pass the following Order:
(i) Criminal Petition is hereby Allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.861/2016 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds.