Karnataka High Court
Panchappa S/O Dandappa Dodamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15 t h DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No .101585 OF 2018
C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION No .101599 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION No .101682 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION No .101690 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION No .101691 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION No .101703 OF 2018
IN Crl.P. No.101585/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. PANCHAPPA S/O DANDAPPA DODAMANI
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER, KA-24 M-2117,
R/O: GANDI NAGAR, MUNAVALLI,
TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. KUMAR S/O FAKIRAPPA SOORANNAVAR
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/DRIVER,
KA-24 TA-3220,
R/O: JIDDI ONI, MUNAVALLI,
TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SALIM KUTUBUDDIN @ SALIM MALIK KONDANNAVAR
AGE: 27 YEARS,
:2: Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NIRMAL NAGAR,
TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. KUTUBUDDIN ALISAB KHONDUNAIK
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, OWNER OF KA-24 M-2117,
R/O: NIRMAL NAGAR,
MUNAVALLI,
TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHIVAPPA BASAPPA BAJAPPAGOL
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER/DRIVER,
KA-24 TA-3220 & KA-24 E 9854,
R/O: BAZAR ROAD,
MUNAVALLI,
TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SAUNDATTI PS,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.210/2018 OF SAUNDATTI POLICE
STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4(1),
4(1A), 21, 22 OF MMRD ACT, 1957, SO FAR THIS
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
:3: Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
IN Crl.P. No.101599/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. YALLAPPA S/O NIMBOJAPPA NANNAPPAVAR
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: GARAG,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.
2. BHIMAPPA S/O NAGAPPA SOGALAD
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY TIPPER
NO.KA-25 AA-9295,
R/O: HANGARAKI,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.
3. PANDU S/O MADIGEPPA KALARI
AGE: 25 YEARS,OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: RANKALAKOPPA,
TQ: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. PRAKASH S/O BHIMAPPA MORABAD
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR TAILOR
BEARING NO.KA-49 T-6662,
R/O BANNUR, TQ: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K S PATIL, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RAMADURG P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
:4: Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN RAMADURG PS.CR.NO.160/2018
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 379 OF IPC U/S.4(1), 4(1A) R/W 21 OF MMRD
ACT 1957 AND UNDER SECTION 3, 32, 44 KMMC RULE 1994
PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
RAMDURG, AT RAMDURG, VIDE ANNEXURE-H, AGAINST
PETITIONERS.
IN Crl.P. No.101682/2018:
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA MAHABALESHWAR SHINDHE
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O. GODHOLI VILLAGE
TAL: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MUSARRAT M. SAITH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH NANDAGAD POLICE STATION
BELGAVI DISTRICT
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR CRIME
NO.99/2018 DATED 30.03.2018 REGISTERED BY NANDAGAD
P.S., KHANAPUR CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, FOR OFFENCE U/S. 379
OF IPC AND U/S. 21, 22 OF MMRD (MINES AND MINERALS
REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 AND U/S. 3, 32,
42, 44 OF KMMC RULES (KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS
:5: Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
CONSISTENT RULE) 1994, INSOFAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN
IS CONCERNED.
IN Crl.P. No.101690/2018:
BETWEEN:
YELLAPPA
S/O FAKEERAPPA KANDALI
AGE.25 YEARS
OCC. OWNER AND DRIVER
R/O TEGGIHAL VILLAGE
TQ. SAUNDATTI
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THROUGH BAILHONGAL PS
DISTRICT BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.104/2018 OF BAILHONGAL
POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC AND UNDER
SECTION 21 & 22 OF MMDER ACT, 1957.
IN Crl.P. No.101691/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. PUNDALIK
S/O MUDAKAPPA BOVI
AGE.24 YEARS
OCC. DRIVER
R/O SHIRASANGI
:6: Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
TQ. SAUNDATTI
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI
2. MABUSUBANI @ HUSENI @ SUBANI
S/O DILAVARSAB VATANAL
AGE.25 YEARS
OCC. DRIVER
R/O BAHNDRAHALLI
TQ. SAUNDATTI
DSITRICT. BELAGAVI
3. HANAMANT @ HANAMAPPA
S/O MARUTI BADEMMANNAVAR
AGE.3E YEARS
OCC. OWNER, R/O SHIRSANGI,
TQ. SAUNDATTI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THROUGH SAUNDATTI PS
DISTRICT BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.98/2018 OF SAUNDATTI POLICE
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 379 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4(1), 4(1A), 21
OF MMDR ACT, 1957, SO FAR THIS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
IN Crl.P. No.101703/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDAPPA S/O FAKEERAPPA MALAGI
:7: Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GORABAL VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. KAREPPA S/O UDACHAPPA CHIKKUMMI
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GORABAL VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. ARJUN S/O FAKEERAPPA CHIKKUMMI
AGE: 19 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GORABAL VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THROUGH SAUNDATTI PS,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.225/2018 OF SAUNDATTI POLICE
STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/SEC.379 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4(1), 4(1A), 21
AND 22 OF MMDR ACT, 1957, SO FAR THIS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
These Petitions coming on for Admission, this day the
Court made the following:
:8: Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
ORDER
Sri.Praveen K.Uppar learned HCGP accep ts notice for the respondent. With consent of both parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal.
2. Though, all these cases arise out of different Crime numbers of different police stations and p end ing b efore different Courts, since issue involved in the cases is only question of law and the same is common in all these cases, they are taken up together for d isposal by this common order.
3. The respondent police in all these cases registered criminal cases ag ainst the respective petitioners generally for the offences punishab le und er Sections 4, 4(1A), 21, 42 read with Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Develop ment and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act') and und er Rules 3, 32 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1994 (for short 'Rules') and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Cod e, 1860 (for :9: Crl. P No.101585/2018 & Connected cases short 'IPC'), etc. For the purpose of b revity and convenience, the particulars of the Crime numb er, police station, name of the complainant and his designation are set out in the tab ular column below:
Complainant's Sl. Crime Case Number Police Station name and No. Number designation 1 Crl.P. I.M.Matapathi, 210 of 2018 Saundatti P.S. No.101585/2018 PSI (L&O) 2 Crl.P. Ramadurga Sunilkumar Naik, 160 of 2018 No.11599/2018 P.S. PSI 3 Crl.P. Sanjaykumar 99 of 2018 Nandagad P.S. No.101682/2018 Kallur, PSI 4 Crl.P. Bailhongal V.S.Teji, PSI 104 of 2018 No.101690/2018 P.S. (Crime) 5 Crl.P. 98 of 2018 Saundatti P.S. A.K.Kamble, PSI No.101691/2018 6 Crl.P. I.M.Matapathi, 225 of 2018 Saundatti P.S. No.101703/2018 PSI (L&O)
4. In all the above cases, the alleg ations ag ainst the petitioners were that they were illeg ally extracting / transporting sand -the Government property without valid permit or evad ing payment of required royalty. The alleg ations are that thereby they have committed theft of Government p roperty / sand which constitute the offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4, 4(1), 4(1A), 21 & : 10 : Crl. P No.101585/2018 & Connected cases 42 read with Section 22 of the MMDR Act and und er Rules 3, 32 & 44 of the Rules.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners seek quashing of the aforesaid proceedings on the following grounds:
(i) As per Section 22 of the MMDR Act, only an officer authorised as per Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the Rules shall file complaints;
(ii) The comp lainants / informants were not authorised persons to file the complaint.
(iii) Even authorised officers have to file complaint b efore the Mag istrate and not before the Station House Officer of the police station;
(iv) The police are not competent to receive
such complaints and take up
investig ation on such complaints. : 11 : Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
6. Sri.Praveen K.uppar, learned HCGP submits that the police are competent to file the report and on such reports register FIR when the complaints is for the offences punishab le under IPC.
7. Therefore, the q uestion involved in all the above cases is whether a complaint for violation of the p rovisions of MMDR Act can be filed before the Station House Officer of a police station and on such complaint whether the respondent police could register the FIR and take up the investig ation?
8. Section 22 of the MMDR Act reads as und er:
"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.": 12 : Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
9. Complaint is d efined in Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short 'Cr.P.C.'] as follows:
"2. Definitions.--In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires.--
(d) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence but does not include a police report."
10. Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the Rules d efines the authorised officer as follows:
"2(1) (a-1-a) "Authorised Officer"
means an officer not below the rank of Group B authorized by the State Government or the Commissioner or the Director of Mines and Geology or Deputy Commissioner of the District to act for the specific purpose under these Rules."
11. The p erusal of the above provisions make it clear that the Court is b arred from taking cognizance of the offences und er the MMDR Act or : 13 : Crl. P No.101585/2018 & Connected cases the Rules mad e thereund er unless the comp laint in writing is mad e by the persons authorised under Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the Rules. Since Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. excludes the police report from the definition of complaint essentially the comp laint has to b e filed b efore the Mag istrate.
12. In these cases, complainants have not stated in their complaints that they are the persons authorised und er Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the Rules to file complaint. The complaints are not accompanied by any such authorization notifications. Even assuming that they are so authorised , the complaint in respect of the offences und er the MMDR Act and Rules ought to have been filed before the Mag istrate and not before the Station House Officer of the police station.
13. Hon'b le Sup reme Court in p arag rap hs 72 & 73 of the judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. : 14 : Crl. P No.101585/2018 & Connected cases Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 case referred to sup ra, in this reg ard has held as follows:
"72. From a close reading of the provisions of MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378 IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in the manner mentioned above by exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such persons. In other : 15 : Crl. P No.101585/2018 & Connected cases words, in a case where there is a theft of sand and gravel from the Government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in Section 190(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
73. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of relevant provisions of the Act vis-à- vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, we are of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the riverbeds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a distinct offence under IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under Section 378 IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the : 16 : Crl. P No.101585/2018 & Connected cases receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act. Consequently, the contrary view taken by the different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, overruled. Consequently, these criminal appeals are disposed of with a direction to the concerned Magistrates to proceed accordingly."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. A read ing of the above judgment makes it clear that the p olice are not competent to register the FIR for the offences punishab le under MMDR Act or the Rules, but they are not b arred from registering the FIR for the offences punishab le und er IPC. Therefore, the FIR and consequential Criminal proceedings pend ing b efore the Mag istrate in the above cases so far they relate to the offences und er MMDR Act and Rules are liable to be quashed. Therefore, the petitions are p artly allowed. : 17 : Crl. P No.101585/2018
& Connected cases
15. The first information report and other conseq uential p roceedings in the below mentioned cases so far they relate to the offences punishab le und er the MMDR Act and the Rules are hereby quashed:
Crime Police Station Number 210 of 2018 Saundatti P.S. 160 of 2018 Ramadurga P.S. 99 of 2018 Nandagad P.S. 104 of 2018 Bailhongal P.S. 98 of 2018 Saundatti P.S. 225 of 2018 Saundatti P.S. Liberty is reserved to the Government to proceed with regard to the offences under the MMDR Act & the KMMC Rules in the aforesaid cases in accord ance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE VMB/GAB/RK/-