Allowed

Mr Chandrashekar Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2020CRL.P/5373/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash proceedings for alleged offences under the MMDR Act initiated by a private complaint filed by a Police Sub Inspector. The Court quashed the proceedings, relying on prior precedent that only authorized officers may file such complaints.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.132/2020 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Gudibande, are quashed, and the petition is allowed.

Mr Chandrashekar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.P.No.5373 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5373 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, R/AT RAMAPATNA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA-561 209.

¶10

MR. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O K.N.NARAYANA SWAMY, R/AT KARIGANATHAMMANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK-561 209. ... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.MOHAN CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

SRI. GOPALA REDDY, ADULT, PSI, GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, GUDIBANDE-561 209. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶16

Crl.P.No.5373 of 2020

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:17.07.2020 PASSED IN CC NO.132/2020 (PCR NO.26/2020) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4, 4(1A) AND 21 OF MINES NAD MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT 1957 AND UNDER RULES 3(1), 42, 43, 43(a) AND 44 OF KARNATTAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES 1994 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUDIBANDE.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶22

Petitioners are before this court seeking for quashing of the order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC., Gudibande in C.C.No.132/2020 arising out of PCR No.26/2020 taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 4(1A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘MMDR Act’ for brevity) and Rules 3(1), 42, 43, 43(a) and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.

¶23

Crl.P.No.5373 of 2020

¶24

¶25

Sri.Mohan Chandra.P., learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said private complaint had been filed by the second respondent/Police SubInspector, Gudibande Police Station. Such a procedure is not contemplated under the MMDR Act. A private complaint could have only been filed by an authorized officer under the said Act by way of notification. The petitioners not being so authorized, the proceedings cannot continue.

¶26

Per contra, Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP submits that the proceedings had been initiated by the second respondent/PSI on the basis of the voluntary statement made by the petitioners herein and therefore, the proceedings are maintainable.

¶27

Heard and perused the records.

¶28

A perusal of the P.C.R.No.26/2020 on which basis C.C.No.132/2020 has been filed indicates that the complaint has been filed by the second

¶29

Crl.P.No.5373 of 2020

¶30

¶31

respondent/PSI, which is not disputed by the learned HCGP.

¶32

In view of the specific embargo for proceedings only to be initiated by authorized officers under the MMDR Act, as held by this court in the case of Sri. Vivek and Another –vs- The State of Karnataka, By Kunigal Police Station and Another¹ , the said complaint is not maintainable and as such, the proceedings in C.C.No.132/2020 arising out of P.C.R.No.26/2020 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Gudibande, are hereby quashed.

¶33

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

KNM/-

¶36

1 ILR 2018 KAR 1497

Mr Chandrashekar Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Chandrashekar Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Deepa Rai Nonso Vs State of Karnataka by

Renold Raj Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka by

Dr Poonam a Naik Vs State by Basavanagudi Women Ps

Mani Vs State of Karnataka by

Mahadevi @ Madevi W/O Ramanagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka