Karnataka High Court
Sri J Anudeep vs State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26764
CRL.P No. 2417 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2417 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI J ANUDEEP
S/O JUNUTHULA RAJI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 2-6-1065 KLN REDDY
COLONY, HANAMKONDA
BESIDES DEFODELS SCHOOL
WARRANGAL, TELANGANA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT F GOUDAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF
MINES AND GEOLOGY
MANDYA.
2. SRI ARUN KUMAR S/O MAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
Digitally OCCUPATION:GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT
signed by
CHANDANA B OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
M VIDYANAGAR 1ST CROSS,
Location: MANDYA DISTRICT.
High Court of ...RESPONDENTS
Karnataka
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1
NOTICE TO R2 D/W)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2022
PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NAGAMANAGALA IN
PCR.NO.18/2022 CONVERTED TO C.C.NO.82/2022 PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26764
CRL.P No. 2417 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner - accused No.1 seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed in C.C.No.82/2022 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala and impugned proceedings in S.C.No.343/2023 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 4, 4(1-A) of the MMDR Act and Rule 44 of the KMMC Rules and for other reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the 1st respondent and perused the material on record.
For the order proposed, notice to 2nd respondent is dispensed with.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the impugned proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate which is impermissible in law, since the private complaint has to be necessarily filed before the Special Court constituted under Section 30(B) of the MMDR Act and not before the learned Magistrate as held by this Court in the case of Sundaresha H.K. and another Vs. the State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.10780/2023 dated 19.04.2024, wherein it is held as under:
-3-NC: 2025:KHC:26764 CRL.P No. 2417 of 2024 HC-KAR "Petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.136/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri arising out of PCR No.26/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1a), 9, 23C(1)(2) & 24(1) R/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, MMRD Act) .
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no compliance of Section 30(B) of the MMRD Act in the present case. The private complaint is required to be filed in special courts and the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. He submits that this Court in identical circumstances in Crl.P.No.100525/2017 disposed of on 22.3.2017 has considered this aspect of the matter and has quashed the proceedings.
4 Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, however does not the dispute that there is no compliance of Section 30(B) of the MMRD Act in the present case.
5. The material on record would go to show that private complaint has been filed against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences before the court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences and thereafter case was registered against the petitioners in C.C.No.136/2023. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.100525/2017 at the paragraph Nos.3 and 4 has observed as follows:-
"3. The provision under Section 30B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, ('the MMDR Act', for short) confers special status on the Special Courts and -4- NC: 2025:KHC:26764 CRL.P No. 2417 of 2024 HC-KAR the Governments have to establish Special Courts for the purpose of trying the offences under the MMRD Act. There is no doubt so far as the above aspect is concerned. Section 30B of the MMDR Act reads as under:-
"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 cocurrence 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.
(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."
4. In view of the above said provision, in order to deal with the matters under the above said enactment, the Government has issued notification constituting Special Courts for the purpose of dealing with the offences under the MMRD Act. As per Section 30B of the MMDR Act, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of every district have been designated as the Special Judge. In view of Section 30B of the MMDR Act and the notification issued, as noted above, it is crystal clear that the Judicial Magistrates of First Class, have no right to entertain any complaint where the allegations fall under the MMDR Act or the Rules thereunder and with allied offences. The factual matrix of this case shows the Geologist- respondent No.3 ha filed a private complaint before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Ranebennur, against the petitioner for the offences punishable -5- NC: 2025:KHC:26764 CRL.P No. 2417 of 2024 HC-KAR u/S 4(1), 4(1-A) and 21 of MMRD Act, 1957 Rules 3(1), 36, 42, 44(1) of KMMCR Rules, 1994 and under Rules 3-B and 3-C of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 read with Section 16(1) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Ranebennur, after receiving the complaint ha taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused vide orders dated 02.11.2016 by regitering a Criminal Case in C.C. No. 692/2016. The said registration of the case in C.C. No. 692/2016. The said registration of the cae taking of cognizance and issuing of process is without jurisdiction by the Magistrate. In this background, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned JMFC could not have entertained the complaint, taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the said order requires to be quashed. The complaint averments discloses the specific allegations of petitioners having committed offences under Sections 4(1), 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, under Section 3(1), 36, 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, under Section 3(1), 6-A(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, and under Section 3B and 3C of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012."
6. Under the circumstances, the impugned criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Sringeri for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1a), 9, 23C(1)(2) & 24(1) R/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The entire proceedings in C.C.No.136/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri arising out of PCR No.26/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections -6- NC: 2025:KHC:26764 CRL.P No. 2417 of 2024 HC-KAR 4(1), 4(1a), 9, 23C(1)(2) & 24(1) R/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is hereby quashed"
4. The issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Sundaresha's case supra and consequently, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.
5. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed in C.C.No.82/022 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala and the impugned proceedings in S.C.No.343/2023 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, insofar as the petitioner is concerned are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.