Allowed

Sri. Akshay S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2024WP/8376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition praying for the quashing of an FIR and complaint under the MMDR Act and IPC. Relying on a prior order that reservation of cognizance under Section 22 MMDR Act is mandatory, the Court quashed proceedings against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Impugned FIRs in Crime No.59/2018 and Crime No.60/2018 quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner/accused No.3.

Sri. Akshay S Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12826 WP No. 8376 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION No. 8376 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. AKSHAY S., S/O SHEKAR N., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT No.28, PWD QUARTERS BELUR ROAD, DONIKANA, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KAAPU POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶12

DR. H. S. MAHADESHWARA, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GEOLOGIST, MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT, RAJATHADRI MANIPAL, UDUPI, KARNATAKA-576101.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 27/02/2018 GIVEN BY THE R3

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12826 WP No. 8376 of 2024

¶17

(ANNEXURE-A) AND IMPUGNED FIR IN CRIME NO. 59/2018 DATED 27/02/2018 (ANNEXURE-B) REGISERED BY THE R1 POLICE WHICH IS RENUMBERED AS CRIME NO. 60/2018 DATED 09/03/2018 (ANNEXURE-D) REGISTERED BY THE R2 POLICE AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DIV) AND CJM COURT, CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶21

The petitioner/accused No.3 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR At') ; under Rules 43(1) and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994; and under Sections 379 and 420 of Indian Penal Code alleging that, the petitioner along with the other accused was found transporting the sand unauthorisedly without permit as specified under the provisions of MMDR Act and by creating Mineral Dispatch Permit, has cheated the Government.

¶22

The accused No.4 had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.25908 of 2018, challenging the very same impugned proceedings. This Court, by order dated 06^th June, 2022, quashed the impugned proceedings stating that the cognizance of the offence punishable under the provision of MMDR Act can be taken only on the complaint in writing filed by the officer prescribed as

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12826 WP No. 8376 of 2024

¶24

specified under Section 22 of the said Act and also on the ground that Sections 379 and 420 of Indian Penal Code are invoked only to overcome the bar contained under Section 22 of MMDR Act so also, in the absence of essential elements to constitute the commission of aforesaid offences.

¶25

Therefore, this petition is also required to be disposed of in terms of order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶26

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i) The Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶29

ii) The impugned F.I.R. in Crime No.59 of 2018 dated 27.02.2018 registered by the respondent No.1 - Police and the F.I.R. in Crime No.60 of 2018 dated 09^th March, 2018 registered by the respondent No.2 - Police insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused No.3 are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri. Akshay S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Akshay S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Sivaprasad. K Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sarala N Vs the Regional Transport

M/S Sangam Enterprieses Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. C. Anjali Vs the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Coromandel Sugars Limited Vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission

Doddathippeswamy Vs Asst Executiven Engineer