Karnataka High Court
Sri B V Byre Gowda vs The State By on 31 January, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 2401 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2401 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B V BYRE GOWDA
S/O LATE B.N.VENKATARAMANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
PROPRIETOR: M/S CHANNAKESAVA
STONE CRUSHER
R/OF THAMME GOWDA EXTENSION
HOSKOTE TOWN - 562 114
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. SMT. BHANUMATHI
W/O SRI N. PARTHASARATHI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO. 475, 3RD CROSS
11TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 008.
Digitally signed by
3. SRI N PARTHASARATHI
R HEMALATHA S/O LATE R. NATESHAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
KARNATAKA
PROPRIETOR:M/S MOOKAMBIKA
STONE CRUSHER
BEERAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 122
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
R/AT NO. 475, 3RD CROSS
11TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE
INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.RAHUL S.REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.P No. 2401 of 2017
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
NANDAGUDI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
MINES AND GEOLOGY
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
SITUATED AT: V.V.TOWER
13TH FLOOR, - 560 001
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR IN CR.NO.109/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 5 OF THE EXPLOSIVE
ACT AND U/S 7 OF EXPLOSIVE RULES, 2008.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosives Act 1884 and under Section 7 of Explosive Rules, 2008 is impugned in this petition.
2. The summary of the FIR is that, on the instructions of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Doddaballapur on 13.04.2016, the Revenue Inspector and the -3- CRL.P No. 2401 of 2017 Village Accountant visited the subject property. It was found that the petitioners were carrying on quarrying activities by using explosives. Due to explosives used by the petitioners/accused, cracks have developed on the properties situated in the adjoining village and also caused inconvenience to the villagers and the petitioners were carrying blasting operations without obtaining license under the provisions of law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the activities were carried in pursuance of the license issued under the provisions of Explosives Act. The blasting operations were carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which is evident from the final report at Annexure-C. This Court in Crl.P.No.2400/2017 has quashed the proceedings for the offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Sections 4(1A) and 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent/State submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. discloses that petitioners/accused without obtaining license were carrying out -4- CRL.P No. 2401 of 2017 blasting operations, due to which, damage is caused to private properties of the villagers in the surrounding areas. He further submits that allegations in the FIR require to be investigated and at this stage, the registration of F.I.R. does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Petitioners have produced copy of final report submitted by the Head of the Department of National Institute of Rock Mechanism and finding recorded in the inspection is as under:
"a. All the blasts monitored during the study period were safe with respect to ground vibration and air overpressure.
b. The frequency of recorded ground motion is greater than 8 Hz.
c. The suggested permissible ground vibration level is 5 mm/s for the structures located in the nearby villages of the two quarries.
d. Based on the JS Code and USBM guidelines, permissible air overpressure level is 133 dB for the -5- CRL.P No. 2401 of 2017 structures located in the nearby villages of the two quarters.
e. The ground vibration due to blasting at the two quarries of Channakeshava and Mookambika Stone Crushers attenuates below 5 mm/s beyond a distance of 150 m from the blast.
f. Ground vibration in terms of peak particles velocity can be estimated from the predictor equation 2 or Figure 8 for both the quarries. g. It is recommended that the maximum charge per delay and total charge shall not exceed 25 kg in any of the blast."
7. Perusal of the report indicates that petitioners carried out blasting operations after obtaining license from the Competent Authority under the provisions of Explosives Act, 1884 and the blasting operation were carried out in terms of the condition contained in the license and there was no damage caused to the properties situated in the surrounding areas.
8. In view of the report submitted by the Competent Authority, the allegations made in the F.I.R. is without any substance and the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law.
-6-CRL.P No. 2401 of 2017
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. Criminal Petition is allowed.
2. Impugned F.I.R. in Crime No.109/2016 registered by Nandagudi Police Station, on the file of Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Hosakote, Bangalore Rural District, insofar it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby quashed.
Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration in view of the disposal of the main matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE GPG -7- CRL.P No. 2401 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI B V BYRE GOWDA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE BY AND ANOTHER] HCJ 24.03.2023 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO' It is submitted that in the operative portion of the order dated 31.01.2023 at page No.6 by oversight petitioner/accused No.3 is omitted..
It is directed in the operative portion of the order dated 31.01.2023 at page No.6 petitioner/accused No.3 to be inserted and the same to be read as 'petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3' instead of 'petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2'.
This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 31.01.2023.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1