The High Court rejected a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashal of proceedings for mining offences. The court held that the petitioners' defences regarding lack of material are for trial and no warrant exists for interference at this stage.
The petition seeking quashal of FIR/chargesheet was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4207 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Shiva Reddy. R, Advocate)
AND:
2
Bangalore-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. B.J. Eshwarappa, Government Peader for Respondent No.1)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6832/2013 on the file of the II Addl. C.J.M., Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore so far as it relates to petitioners, wherein the petitioners, in particular, are facing prosecution for offence punishable under KMMCR 1994 Rules 3 and 42 MM (R & D) Act, 1957 under Sections 4, 21 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time.
proceeded against for offences punishable under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 as well as
3
Sections 4, 21 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for brevity). It transpires that there was a writ petition filed in W.P.No.797/2012 in the writ jurisdiction of this Court alleging air pollution harming public health. Pursuant to the same, the officers and the staff of the Mines and Geology Department, Revenue Officers, staff and Officers of the Karnataka Pollution Control Board, had visited the spot. On noticing the several Government vehicles approaching, the labourers and drivers of vehicles who were engaged in activity over there, had taken to their heels. A tractor, five drill rods and one jack hammer had been seized and on enquiry, it was learnt that the petitioners and two others had indulged in mining below a high transmission line. Therefore, a case was registered against the present petitioners. The charge-sheet has been submitted against five persons wherein present petitioners are named as Accused 1 and 2. The Magistrate having taken cognizance on 9.11.2012, the petitioners claim to be aggrieved and have preferred this
4
petition on the ground that there is no incriminating material against the petitioners and that the boundaries of the spot from where incriminating material allegedly has been seized is inaccurate and there is no material to hold that the petitioners were indulging in any such activity so on and so forth.
and the material available on record.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE
KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under CrPC Section 482 where the petitioners allege lack of incriminating material and inaccurate boundaries at an early stage.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Ramaswamy and Indra Kumar
State of Karnataka and R. Basavaraj
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
