Karnataka High Court
Vishweshwarar Venkataram Hebbar vs State Of Karnataka on 20 July, 2023
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594
CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100167 OF 2020 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. VISHWESHWARAR VENKATARAM HEBBAR,
S/O VENKATARAMANA HEBBAR,
AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS,
R/AT: HALEPAL TALUK, YALLAPUR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581359.
2. SRI.RAMAPPA PARASHABHOVI MALENADU,
S/O. PARASA,
AGED ABOUT: 73 YEARS,
M/S. MOOKAMBIKA ENTERPRISES,
ADHANI CONSTRUCTION, SHOP NO.122/49B,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-590029.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND MINERALS,
KATTIMANI MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, D.C. COMPOUND,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, BY GEOLOGIST,
Digitally signed by
SRI.MAHESH M. GOUDA NAYAK.
CHANDRASHEKAR R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH, DHARWAD.
Date: 2023.07.26
10:56:42 -0700 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE DATED 03/11/2016 IN
C.C.NO.385/2016 (PCR NO.50/2016) ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT
KALAGHATAGI DHARWAD DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4(1)(1-A), 21 AND
22 OF KARNATAKA MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594
CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020
REGULATION) ACT, 1957, RULES 3(1), 6(2), 42(1) AND 44(2)
OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1994
AND ALSO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
3(1), 16(1) AND 16(2) OF THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF
STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING AND REGULATION ACT, 2011
AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC
NO.385/2016 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF'S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"To quash the dated 03/11/2016 in C.C.No.385/2016 (PCR No.50/2016) on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kalaghatagi Dharwad District for the alleged offences punishable under Section 4(1)(1-a), 21 and 22 of Karnataka Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Rules 3(1), 6(2), 42(1) and 44(2) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and also for the offence punishable under Section 3(1), 16(1) and 16(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Licensing and Regulation Act, 2011 and consequently the entire proceedings in CC No.385/2016 by allowing this petition and grant -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020 such other and further relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case."
3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:
3.1 Mahesh M Goudanayak, authorised officer who has been authorised by the notification No.CI 21/MMN(2)/2014, Bangalore dated 21.01.2014 filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for taking action in respect of illegal mining of stone and illegal establishment of stone crusher in land bearing Sy.No.516/1+2+3.
3.2 On 12.09.2016, the complainant received a telephone call from the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad stating that illegal stone quarrying and stone crushing has taken place in the said land and therefore, the complainant and Mohammad Nasarulla, Senior Geologist, Basavaraj R Pharshi, Junior Engineer attached to the Geologist Office, Parikshit P Lalbeg, Revenue Inspector, -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020 Tabakadahonnallli, Tahasildar Office, Kalaghatagi, Gurumanta Putragouda V Patil, Deputy Tahasildar, Tabakadahonnallli, Tahasildar Office, Kalaghatagi and Bannappa H Baraker, village assistant Tabakadahonnallli, Tahasildar Office, Kalaghatagi visited the said land on 13.09.2016 between 1.15 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. and noticed that illegal stone crushing unit has been in operation and stone has been crushed and made into gravel to the tune of 17,127 metric tons.
3.3 In respect of illegal stone crushing conducted by Allaudin Khaji who was the erstwhile owner of the said land, criminal action was initiated and erstwhile owner was fined Rs.28,41,884/- in C.C.No.158/2014 and directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,166/- towards royalty. The said Allaudin Khaji paid the fine amount as well as royalty amount. The illegal stone crushing was stopped in the said land.
3.4 It is contended that the first petitioner herein has purchased the said land from Allaudin Khaji and son of -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020 the first petitioner has applied for permission and licence for quarrying the stone in the said land and also to establish stone crusher unit. On account of major defects in the said application, application of son of the first petitioner was not processed and it was kept pending.
3.5 When the matter stood thus, pending sanction and permission/licence, the first petitioner had commenced stone quarrying and stone crushing.
3.6 On 02.06.2016, 26.07.2016 and on 06.09.2016, notices were issued to the son of the first petitioner and unit was sealed by the concerned authorities. Despite such sealing the unit, the petitioners herein illegally broke open the seal and started stone quarrying and crushing.
3.7 The said aspect was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn telephonically directed the complainant and other officials of the department of geology and directed them to take action. In pursuance of -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020 the same, inspection was conducted on 13.09.2016 and the team has noticed that the stone crusher unit was in operation and after quarrying, the stone was crushed to the tune of 17,127 metric tons and stored in the said place.
3.8 After inspecting the same, crushing unit was stopped and sealed and also notices were given that crushed stone need not be transported from the place of incident and action was initiated against the petitioners by filing a private complaint.
4. The learned trial Magistrate after taking note of the contents of the private complaint, took cognizance and issued process. The petitioners herein appeared before the trial Court and obtained bail and thereafter they have challenged the order of taking cognizance on the following grounds:
1. That the Hon'ble trial court without following the procedure vested in MMDR Act directly taking cognizance against the petitioners.
2. It is submitted that complainant has filed a false complaint against the present petitioner.-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020
3. That the complaint filed by the complainant is not followed by the procedure vested in MMDR this aspects of the matter have not at all been considered by the trial court hence the proceedings against the petitioner/accused persons is liable to be quashed.
4. That the initiation of the proceeding against the accused persons itself is not followed by procedure vested in MMDR Act. Hence the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused persons is liable to be quashed.
5. It is submitted that in the first instance, it is made clear that the no such incidence is occurred as alleged by the complainant. It is a false complaint just to harass the petitioners and to see them behind the bars. This is the classic case for abuse of process of law and hence the proceedings lacked malafide and covered by the principles laid by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal.
6. It is submitted that the initiation of the criminal proceedings at the instance of the respondent and the order of the cognizance passed by the court below is bad in law as the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners even without registration of crime. The seizure of the material belonging to the petitioners has taken place on 13/9/2016 by the respondent while the private complaint is filed by the respondent on 16/9/2019 before the jurisdictional court for the alleged offences punishable under section 4 (1-A), 21 and 22 of Karnataka Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Rules 3 (1), 6(2), 42(1) and 44(2) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and also for the offence punishable under section 3(1), 16(1) and 16(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011.
7. The impugned order suffers from serious illegality apparent on the face of the record. Hence -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020 the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it ought to have seen that such a heavy burden could not have been casted on the petitioner.
8. The trial court has not applied its judicial mind in passing the impugned order.
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the complainant is not authorised person to initiate the action as he has no written authorisation from the licencing authority as is contemplated under Section 8 of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Licensing and Regulation Act and Rules and therefore the very initiation of the private complaint has vitiated and further action thereof is impermissible resulting in abuse of process of law and sought for quashing of pending criminal case.
6. He also pointed out that seizure has not been recorded and therefore there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act and therefore criminal action against the petitioners is impermissible. -9-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020
7. He also contended that The notification referred to by the complainant in his complaint would not authorise the complainant to file a complaint and it is only meant for regulating transport of illegal mining and not for initiating action and therefore sought for quashing of pending criminal proceedings.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition grounds by contending that specific notification number has been mentioned in the complaint itself issued by the State Government authorising the complainant to initiate the complaint and the same is well within the powers of the State Government and therefore the first ground on which the petitioner seeking for quashing of the complaint and further action, is impermissible.
9. She also contended that seized gravel after quarrying the stone in the place is admittedly illegal as the application filed by the son of the first petitioner is still under process for consideration and the petitioners have
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020 gone to the extent of breaking open the seal put by the geology department on an earlier occasion and have illegally crushed the stone to the tune of 17,127 metric tons and the same is found in the mahazar and is also made as annexure to the complaint and therefore there is enough compliance of the rules as per the Act and even if such minor mistakes if any are to be found in the case of the prosecution, the same needs to be addressed during trial and the same would not make out a ground for quashing of criminal proceedings and sought for dismissal of the petition.
10. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.
11. On such perusal of the material on record it is crystal clear that the land earlier belong to one Allaudin Khaji. For the illegal mining, quarrying and crushing of stone, criminal action was already initiated and Allaudin Khaji was fined in a sum of Rs.28,41,884/- and Rs.20,166/- towards royalty. The same was paid by
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020 Allaudin Khaji. Since Allaudin Khaji could not further carry on illegal activity, he has sold the property in favour of first petitioner.
12. After purchase of the said property by the first petitioner, son of the petitioner applied for licence to quarry the stone and crush the same. The said application was admittedly a defective application and therefore it was kept pending. Even prior to the concerned authority sanctioning the application of the petitioner, the petitioner highhandedly started illegal quarrying and stone crushing in the land.
13. On noticing the same, on 02.06.2016, 26.07.2016 and 06.09.2016, notices were given to stop the quarrying and unit was also seized. Despite the same, the petitioners herein have highhandedly broke open the seal showing utter disrespect to law enforcing agency and have started illegal quarrying of crushing of stone, which was reported to the Deputy Commissioner.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020
14. The Deputy Commissioner in turn directed the complainant and other officers of geology department to visit the spot and make an inspection and to file report and take action in accordance with law if any illegal activity is going on in the said place.
15. Accordingly, on 13.09.2016, the complainant along with other officials referred supra has visited the unit and noticed that quarrying and stone crushing has taken place and gravel to the tune of 17,127 metric tons was crushed and stored in the place of incident.
16. Necessary notices have been issued to the concerned persons including the owners and they have been given instructions not to transport the stored gravel until further orders. Thereafter, complaint came to be filed.
17. These aspects of the matter are found from the complaint itself in a clear and categorical manner.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020
18. Whether at all the petitioners are responsible for the same and they had proper licence to carry out the quarrying and stone crushing is a matter that has to be decided by the trial Judge in the trial after full fledged trial.
19. If at all if any technical plea is available to the petitioners, they can always plead the same before the leaned trial Magistrate in accordance with law as their defence. That itself would not make out a ground for quashing the duly instituted criminal complaint especially having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances referred to supra.
20. Further, the complainant did not possess any previous enmity or animosity as against the petitioners so as to file a false complaint against them.
21. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7594 CRL.P No. 100167 of 2020 urged in the petition are not sufficient to quash the pending criminal proceedings.
22. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER Criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 64