Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohan vs State By Nagamangala Police Station on 7 March, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.944/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Mohan
S/o Rangappa,
Aged about 25 years,
R/o Vjenahalli Village,
Kudur Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
2. Sri Nagaraju
S/o Ganga Muniyappa,
Aged about 25 years,
R/a Beedanapalya,
Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
3. Sri Mahesha
S/o Malleshaiah,
Aged about 24 years,
R/a Anchinahalli Village @ Post
Koratagere Taluk,
Tumkur District.
4. Sri Ramachandraiah B C
S/o Chikka Venkataiah,
Aged about 48 years,
R/s No. 191, Benaka Layout,
Kempalinganahalli, Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
2
5. Sri Gopal V.,
S/o Venkatesha B,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No. 1016, 2nd Cross,
K.N.Extension,
Triveni Road,
Yelahanka, Bangalore.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Keshava Bhat A., Adv.,)
AND:
1. State by Nagamangala Police Station
(Represented by learned Public Prosecutor)
High Court Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Sri Harisha K N
Police Inspector,
Nagamangala Police Station,
Nagamangala - 571 432.
Mandya District.
...Respondents
(By Sri. Chetan Desai., HCGP for R-1
R-2 Served and unrepresented)
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C
praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.582/2015 pending
on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nagamangala & etc.,
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the Court made the following:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings pending on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nagamangala in C.C.No.582/2015.
2. Brief facts of the case that, the respondent-police filed complaint against present petitioners and other persons for the alleged offences under section 379 of IPC and Sections 21(4), 21(5), 4(1A), 21(3), 21(1), 21(2) of MMRD Act, 1957 (Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act) and also under section 42, 3, 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1994. According to the FIR and the charge sheet, the respondent police initiated proceedings suo-moto on the basis of some confirmed information received by them. On the basis of the FIR and charge sheet, the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nagamangala Court has registered C.C.No.582/2015 against the petitioners and other persons . 4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submission that so far as the alleged offences under the provisions of the MMRD Act is concerned, in view of Section 22 of the said Act, there is a bar for the police to entertain complaint and file report in the matter. He also made submission that the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in its order dated 28/02/2017 passed in Criminal Petition No. 7894/2016 took the view that so far as the cognizance in crime is concerned, there is a bar for the police to entertain complaint and file report, under Section 22. Therefore, the proceedings have been quashed. In another order of this Court dated 22/01/2018 passed in Criminal Petition No.8165/2017, similar order has been passed so far as the alleged offences under the provisions of the MMRD Act. Even the allegation, so far as the theft of the sand and the alleged offences under Section 379 of IPC is concerned, learned counsel submits that looking to the complaint averments and other material collected during investigation, the materials will not make out case of theft 5 of sand. Therefore, there is no prima-facie material to show even to proceed with the alleged offence under Section 379 of IPC.
4. Learned H.C.G.P opposed the petition, contending that looking to the allegation in the complaint and the statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation, it is clearly mentioned that there was a theft of sand. Hence, it is his contention that at this stage these materials, prima-facie goes to show the involvement of the petitioners in committing the offence of theft of sand. Therefore, contention of the other side that there is no prima-facie material against the accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC is also not corroborated. So far as the alleged offences under the provision of MMRD Act is concerned, learned HCGP made submission that the Co-ordinate bench of this Court took the view that the proceedings are not maintainable in view of Section 22 of the said Act.
6
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and also the contents of the FIR and other materials produced by the petitioners along with petition in the case. Investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed. So far as the alleged offences under Sections 21(4), 21(5), 4(1A), 21(3), 21(1), 21(2) of MMRD Act are concerned, in view of Section 22 of the said Act, the proceedings initiated are not sustainable in law. Therefore, to that extent, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in respect of the said offences are hereby quashed. So far as the alleged offences under Section 379 of IPC is concerned, though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no prima-facie case, but looking to the prosecution material, the allegation in the complaint, the statement of witnesses and the Mahazar proceedings collected during the investigation it goes to show the involvement of the petitioners in committing the theft of the sand. Therefore, it is not a case for quashing 7 of the proceedings even in respect of the offences under Section 379 of IPC. Hence, the proceedings in respect of the alleged offences under Section 379 of IPC has to be proceeded with.
With the above observations, petition is hereby disposed of.
Hence petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV