Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Bharamappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 August, 2018
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101228/2018
BETWEEN
1. RAMESH
S/O BHARAMAPPA
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: NELKUDRI VILLAGE,
TQ: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI.
2. MARUTHI
S/O BHEEMAPPA
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: HAREGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI.
3. GONEPPA M @ GONIBASAPPA
S/O GANGAPPA
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: CHIKKASOBATI VILLAGE,
TQ: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI.
4. CHANDRASHEKARA B
S/O B. ESHAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: BALLARI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.C.JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADV.)
:2:
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD,
(THROUGH H.B. HALLI P.S.)
2. SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR
OCC: PSI, AGE: 37 YEARS,
R/O: H.B. HALLI P.S.,
TQ: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. S.P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND
CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.96/2016 REGISTERED BEFORE
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR AN OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4(1), 4(1A) OF MMDR ACT 1957
UNDER SECTIONS 42, 44 OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL
CONSISTENT RULE 1994 AND UNDER SECTIONS 379, 511 OF
IPC AND ALSO ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.195/2018
PENDING ON THE FILE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JUDGE,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL
PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings relating to Hagaribommanahalli P.S., in Crime No.96 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 511 of IPC, besides Sections 4(1), 4(1A) of MMDR Act, 1957 and Rules 42 and 44 of KMMC Rules, 1994.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. SPP for the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-PSI lodged a complaint stating that on 21.05.2016 at about 11:45 a.m. he received credible information that in H.B.Halli Sante Market near Hagari Stream there was illegal transportation of sand. Based on the said information, the complainant along with his staff went to the spot and found that 3 persons were loading the sand in two tractors with the help of :4: JCB, at that time the complainant conducted raid along with his staff and arrested the persons and also seized the vehicles. On filing of the complaint by the complainant, crime came to be registered against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and thereafter proceeded with the case for investigation.
4. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners taken me through the accusations made in the complaint i.e., in Crime No.96 of 2016, wherein the Investigating Officer conducted the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and also recorded the statement of the witnesses against the accused, as they were said to be transporting the sand without having any valid permit from the competent authority. He further submits that the respondent-Police have filed the complaint against the accused without having any jurisdiction to register the FIR and investigate the offences under the MMDR Act and KMMC Rules. It is relevant to state that as per Section 22 of the MMDR :5: Act, 1957, the Police have no jurisdiction to register FIR and investigate the offence under the MMDR Act and KMMC Rules and to file any report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. The said Section 22 of the MMDR Act reads as under:
"22. Cognizance of offences.--No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government."
5. On plain reading of the provision, it contemplates a private complaint by the competent officer appointed by the State or Central Government under the said enactment. Whereas in the instant petition, the respondent-Police have filed the complaint on the basis of the tractors said to be used by the drivers and the owners for having transportation of sand without having any valid permit. In support of his contention, the learned :6: counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Vivek and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka by Kunigal Police Station, Tumkur District and Another reported in 2018 (2) KCCR 1239, wherein it has held that the offence under Section 379 of IPC and KMMC Rules, the allegations as to illegal transportation of sand, charge sheet filed, committal of Special Court, plea that Police did not register any case though they have received credible information with regard to commission of cognizable offences as per Section 154 Cr.P.C. and Special Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and to entertain charge sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in view of the bar under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the KMMC Rules, 1994. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the same is squarely applicable to the present case on hand and seeking quashment of the entire :7: proceedings relating to the case in Crime No.96 of 2016 filed against the accused persons.
6. On the other hand, learned Addl. SPP for the respondent - State has opposed the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking quashment of the entire proceedings, as where the accused are required to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 511 of IPC. He further submits that the allegations made against the accused relating to the case in Crime No.96 of 2016 that the petitioners were transporting the sand illegally without having any valid permit from the competent authority. In support of his submission, he has placed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay reported in 2014(9) SCC 772, the Police have jurisdiction to register and investigate the offence under Section 379 of IPC and any other provisions of Indian Penal law. Hence, sought for dismissal of the :8: petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. Keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and so also the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent State, it is relevant to state that the investigation ought to have been taken by the concerned authority and the only competent authority has to file a complaint against the accused before the competent Court of law, to follow the object of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and also the KMMC Rules, 1994 and to file any report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Insofar as the cognizance of the offence are concerned, no Courts shall take cognizance for the offences punishable under this Act. The same has been extracted in this petition for reference and on that ground the petitioner is seeking quashment of the entire proceedings. Under these circumstances, the investigation relating to the :9: offence under MMDR Act, 1957 and KMMC Rules, 1994 are concerned, it requires intervention.
Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the accused in Crime No.96 of 2016 is hereby quashed, as the Police have no jurisdiction to proceed with the case for investigation and to file the final report as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. However, the State is at liberty to take appropriate measures to comply with the aforesaid Section 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957, if need arises relating to the involvement of the accused for having transportation of the sand in tractors and JCB without having any valid permit. As such, the liberty is accorded to the State to approach the appropriate Forum to initiate the proceeding against the accused persons. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed in part. : 10 :
The further investigation insofar as the petitioners are concerned, relating to the case in Crime No.96 of 2016 of Hagaribommanahalli P.S., Ballari District is hereby quashed, insofar it relates to the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of MMDR Act, 1957 and Rules 42 and 44 of KMMC Rules, 1994. Insofar as the offences under Sections 379 and 511 of IPC are concerned, the Investigating Authorities are at liberty to investigate the case in accordance with law and to submit the report to the Court, as where the FIR is said to be pending.
SD/-
JUDGE Rsh