Karnataka High Court
Mr Koti Reddt vs State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8862/2019
Between
Mr.Koti Reddy
s/o K Sesha Reddy
aged about 59 years
Director, M/s.Rail One
Projects Private Limited
H.No.8-2-693/12-14
Flat No.G3, Road, No.12
Banjara Hills, Hyerabad (AP) ...Petitioner
(By Sri L M Chidanandayya, Advocate)
And
1. State of Karnataka
Reptd. by its Sub-Inspector of
Police, Gadag Rural Police
Station, Gadag District
Gadag-582101
Rep. by S.P.P. High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Senior Geologist
Sri Virupaksha Gowda
s/o Maadevappa, Age Major
Department of Mines and Geology
Gadag Taluk and District. ... Respondents
(By Sri Ramesh Chigari, HCGP)
2
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire criminal
proceedings initiated in Spl.C.MMRD No.06/2017 arising out of
Cr.No.296/2014 on the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Gadag, in Spl. MMRD No.6/2017 filed for the offence P/U/S 426
of IPC and Section 4 R/W 21 of M.M.R.D. Act and Rule 3(1),
42(1), 44, 43(5) of K.M.M.C. Rule and Section 5 R/W 9(B) of
Explosive Act and Rule 7 of Explosive Rules 2008 and Section 5
of Explosive Substances Act.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The FIR was lodged against the petitioner alleging that the accused have removed the building stones without obtaining prior permission from the competent Authority as specified under the Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concessions Rules, 1994 (for short `KMMC Rules'). It is further alleged that the building stones removed by the accused is valued at Rs.4,63,94,600/-. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 4 read with Section 21 MMRD Act, 1957, Rule 3(1), 42(1), 44, 43(5) of KMMC Rules, 1994 and Section 5 read with Section 9(B) of Explosive Act, 1884 and Rue 7 of Explosive Rules, 2008 and Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took the cognizance 3 for the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner and issued process to the petitioner. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
2. Sri L M Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the company having not been arraigned as an accused in the charge sheet, the same is hit by Section 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short `KMMDR Act') since the vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner, who is the director of the company. He further submits that the police have no authority to register the FIR and it is only the learned Magistrate who can take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the MMDR Act only upon a complaint in writing that effect by a person authorised in this behalf under the provisions of the MMDR Act. Hence, he submits that the registration of FIR by the police officer is without authority of law and also the proceedings culminating and filing of chare sheet is vitiated. In support, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada -vs- Godfather Travels & 4 Tours (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 and Sharad Kumar Sanghi -vs- Sangita Rane reported in (2015) 12 SCC 781.
3. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner having removed the building stones without prior permission from the competent Authority specified under the provisions of KMMC Rules, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences alleged against him. Hence, he submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The charge sheet discloses that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is the director of M/s.Rail One Project Pvt. Ltd. and has removed the building stone from the land in question without obtaining prior permission from the competent Authority as specified under the provisions KMMC Rules, 1994. The company having not been arraigned as 5 accused, the vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner, who is the Managing Director and Director of the said company as specified under Section 23 of the MMDR Act, 1957. Hence, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner without arraigning the company as accused is not sustainable in law.
6. Section 22 of the MMDR Act,1957 specifies that the learned Magistrate shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf. The said provision mandates that the police have no jurisdiction to undertake the investigation and the authorized officer can file private complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.PC for taking cognizance. Hence, the police have no jurisdiction to file charge sheet against the petitioner. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the police under Section 173 of Cr.PC and the same is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
6
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned proceedings in Special Case MMRD No.06/2017 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm