Karnataka High Court
Mr Laxmipat Dudheria vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRL.P. NO. 6944/2019
BETWEEN
1. MR. LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,
S/O. LATE KANAYYALAL DUDHERIA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS
MR. LAKSHMIPATH DUDERIYA
DIRECTOR, M/S.BHARATH MINES AND
MINERALS ISPATH LTD.,
SINGHI SADAN, INFANTRY ROAD,
CANTONMENT,
BELLARI-583 104.
2. MR.DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,
S/O. LATE UDAICHAND SINGHI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S. BHARATH MINES AND MINERALS,
SINGHI SADAN, INFANTRY ROAD,
CANTONMENT, BELLARI-583 104.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS
2
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, SPL. PP AND
SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, SPL. PP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
29.03.2016 AT ANNEXURE-C IN SPL.CC NO.471/2016
IN CRIME NO.1/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-
82), BENGALURU (SPECIAL COURT EXCLUSIVELY TO
DEAL WITH CRIMINAL CASES RELATED TO ELECTED
MPs./MLAs. IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA)
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 379, 409, 471,
420 OF IPC 1860 AND SEC. 21 R/W. SECTION 4(1),
4(1)(A) OF MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND
REGULATIONS) ACT, 1957 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for Respondent-Lokayuktha Police (SIT).
2. This petition is filed by Accused Nos.35 and 36 in Special C.C. No.471/2016 arising out of Crime No. 1/2014 of Lokayuktha (SIT), now pending on the file of LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions/Special Judge 3 at Bengaluru (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act), seeking to quash the entire proceedings registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 409, 471, 420 of IPC and Section 21 read with 4(1) & 4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'MMDR Act').
3. Sri. Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel for petitioners at the outset would submit that the material allegations are levelled against M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited, which is arraigned as Accused No.34. The petitioners viz., Accused Nos. 35 and 36 have nothing to do with the said Company viz., M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited. Petitioner No.1 (Accused No.35) is the Director of M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited, which is a Public Limited Company. There are no allegations that the 1st petitioner-Sri. Laximipat Dudheria (Accused No.35), in his capacity as the Director of M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals has committed the alleged offences. 4 Likewise, the 2nd petitioner (Accused No.36)- Sri. Dinesh Kumar Singhi is one of the partners of M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited. There are no allegations that M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited has committed any of the alleged offences. There are also no allegations against the petitioners (Accused Nos.35 & 36) in the individual capacity and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners based on the above allegations is illegal and utter abuse of the process of the Court.
4. Further, referring to the statement of CW.134-Sri.Mukesh Bohra and CW-129 Sri. Vineeth Vakare, learned counsel would submit that, if these two statements are accepted as true, there is no material to show the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged offences; the statement of the above witnesses do not disclose that, the petitioners herein have either extracted or transported the alleged mineral and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly illegal and abuse of the process of the Court. Further, referring to the allegations made in the charge sheet, 5 learned counsel would submit that, there are no allegations that the petitioners herein have extracted the Iron Ore from any particular place or removed them to any other places so as to attract the offences under Section 379 of IPC and therefore, the said offence cannot be pressed into service against the petitioners. Further, learned counsel would submit that, there are no allegations of any criminal breach of trust or entrustment of the Iron Ore to the petitioner and likewise, there is material to show that the petitioner has induced any person to deliver the aforesaid Iron Ore and in the said circumstances even the charge under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC cannot stand against the petitioners.
5. In so far as invocation of Section 471 of IPC is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the so- called fabricated permit is not produced along with the charge sheet to fortify the allegations made against the petitioners and as such there is no basis to prosecute the petitioners for the above offences. The learned counsel further submitted that, the charge under the 6 provisions of MMDR Act also cannot stand against the petitioners since the entire proceedings are initiated by a person not authorized under the Provisions of MMDR Act. Thus, the learned counsel prayed for quashing the entire proceedings pending against the petitioners.
6. Meeting the above argument, Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Lokayutha has referred to a letter produced by the Investigating Agency along with the charge sheet, which is addressed to the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Hospet, and it reads as under:-
"With reference to the above, we write to state that ours is a Partnership Firm. The details of Partners are as under:-
Share of
Names of Partners Profit/Loss
Mr.Dinesh Kumar Singhi 10%
BMM Ispath Ltd. 90%
Copy of the Partnership Deed is enclosed for your kind reference."
7. This letter is signed by the authorized signatory Mr. Laxmipat Dudheria. Further with regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners 7 that the alleged concocted permit has not been produced along with the charge sheet, learned counsel has referred to the charge sheet material and pointed- out that the alleged permit was seized during investigation and the same was sent for verification and the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department has certified that it was not issued by the office of the Mines and Geology Department, Ananthapura and as such, there is prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences and thus seeks to dismiss the petition.
8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
9. The 1st petitioner (Accused No.35) does not dispute the fact that, he was the Director of M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited and the 2nd petitioner (Accused No.36) does not dispute the fact that, he was one of the Partners of M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited. The document referred to by the learned Standing Counsel Sri. B.S. Prasad viz., 8 the letter addressed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singhi of M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited indicates that the Firm formed by them has agreed to share profits at the ratio of 10% and 90% respectively and the Partnership Deed is also produced with the authorities, which prima facie disclose that M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited and Sri. Dinesh Kumar Singhi were the partners of the said Firm. As such the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution of 1st Petitioner (Accused No.35) as the Director and the 2nd petitioner (Accused No.36) as a Partner of M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals Ispath Limited, cannot be accepted.
10. Coming to the allegation that, the involved Iron Ore was transported by fabricating a false permit and using the same as genuine, is evidenced by the seizure of the said document as well as the report of Sri. Venkat Reddy, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Department, Ananthapura, vide letter No.LRM 4415/ENG-2011 dated 28.01.2016. As such, the prima facie material is available to support the charges 9 levelled against the petitioners (Accused Nos.35 & 36) and in the said circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, 'offence under Section 471 of IPC is not made-out', cannot be accepted.
11. In so far as invocation of charges against the petitioners under Section 409 and 420 of IPC is concerned, the charge sheet has been filed against 38 accused persons alleging larger conspiracy for illegal extraction, transportation and export of Iron Ore. There being specific allegations that the petitioners herein have also played their role in execution of the object of conspiracy, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are baseless and that the material produced in support thereof is not sufficient to proceed against the petitioners for the above offences.
12. In so far as the offences under the provisions of MMDR Act are concerned, the allegations made in the petition prima facie attract the ingredients of the offence under Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of MMDR 10 Act and in so far as compliance of the legal requirement is concerned, it is pointed-out that the complaint as required under Section 22 of the MMDR Act has been filed before the Special Court. The validity of the order of cognizance taken by the Special Judge based on the above material is answered in the Criminal Petition No.4420/2017 and connected matters.
13. In the above circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order and to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners as sought for in the petition. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*