Allowed¶35

M/S Sai Mahalakshmi Stone Crusher, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2025CRL.P/100125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 30B MMDR Act Special Court exclusive jurisdiction; Magistrate cognizance without authority/lacks authority; quashing of Spl.C.(MMDR) proceedings; Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 Rules 44(1)-(3); MMDR Act Sections 4(1)(1-A), 21, 22; unauthorized transport of building stones; stone crusher licence expired; private complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC by Geologist; reliance on coordinate Bench Crl.P No.100525/2017 paras 3-4; Koppal; Dharwad Bench; S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS petition.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No.5) in Spl.C (MMDR) No.04/2024 pending on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal quashed; liberty reserved to the respondent to file a complaint before the appropriate Bench if permissible in law. ¶35

M/S Sai Mahalakshmi Stone Crusher, Vs State… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under the MMDR Act and allied Rules, given that Section 30B MMDR Act provides for constitution of Special Courts for trying such offences.

¶21

Court's answer

In light of the legal principles established by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P No.100525/2017, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate lacks authority.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Per the Court, Section 30B of the MMRD Act specifically states that the offence under the Act and the Rules can be taken only by a Special Court.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Hemant Chandangoudar J., 20-01-2025), CRL.P No. 100125 of 2025 (S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS): M/s Sai Mahalakshmi Stone Crusher (Accused No.5) sought quashing of the entire proceedings in Spl.C.(MMDR) No.04/2024 (arising out of CC No.3891/2022, Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Koppal) for alleged offences under S.4(1)(1A) MMDR Act, Rules 3(1) and 42(1) MMRD, S.21(1)-(2) and Rules 44(1)-(3) Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994, instituted on a private complaint under S.200 Cr.PC by the respondent alleging unauthorized transport of building stones without permission/licence, the crushing-stone licence having expired. Relying on the coordinate Bench ruling in Crl.P No.100525/2017 (paras 3-4), the Court held that cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act and Rules can be taken only by a Special Court as per Section 30B MMDR Act, and that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate lacks authority. Petition allowed; proceedings in Spl.C.(MMDR) No.04/2024 quashed; liberty reserved to the respondent to file a complaint before the appropriate Bench if permissible in law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:814 CRL.P No. 100125 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100125 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S SAI MAHALAKSHMI STONE CRUSHER, PROP. K. LAKSHMI PRASAD ROA, AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SY.NO.9/2, KEREHALLI, BUDUGUMPA CROSS, TQ AND DISTRICT. KOPPAL-583228.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KOPPAL TOWN, KOPPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT-583234, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.21 07:28:34 +0530

¶13

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, PASS AN ORDER AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER I.E., ACCUSED NO.5 IN SPL.C. (MMDR) NO.04/2024, PENDING BEFORE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL (ARISING OUT OF CC NO.3891/2022, BEFORE THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOPPAL), FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 4(1) (1A) OF MMRD WITH RULE 3(1), 42(1) OF MINES AND MINERAL (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, SECTION 21(1), 21(2) AND RULE 44(1), 44(2), 44(3) OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES 1994.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:814 CRL.P No. 100125 of 2025

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1),(1-A), 22 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, and Rule 3(1), 42(1) of MMRD and Section 21(1) and 21(2) and 44(1), 44(2) and 44(3) of MMRD, is impugned in this petition.

¶20

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC alleging that the petitioner unauthorizedly transported the building stones without permission and license as specified under the Act and Rules, and the license granted to the petitioner for crushing stone has expired.

¶21

The question is whether the learned Magistrate can take the cognizance of the offence has already been examined by this Court in Crl.P No.100525/2017, wherein paragraphs No.3 and 4 has observed as follows:

¶22

"3. The provision under Section 30B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (‘the MMDR Act’, for short) confers special status on the Special Courts and the Governments have to establish Special Courts for the purpose of trying the offences under the MMRD Act. There is no doubt so far as the above aspect is concerned. Section 30B of the MMDR Act reads as under:-

¶23

“ 30B.Constitution of Special Courts. -

¶24

(1) The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences for contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section(1A) of section 4, constitute, by notification, as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification.

¶25

(2) A Special Court shall consist of a Judge who shall be appointed by the State Government with the cocurrence of the High Court.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:814 CRL.P No. 100125 of 2025

¶27

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he is or has been a District and Sessions Judge.

¶28

(4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court may prefer an - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15715 CRL.P No. 10780 of 2023 appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of such order.”

¶29

In view of the above said provision, in order to deal with the matters under the above said enactment, the Government has issued notification constituting Special Courts for the purpose of dealing with the offences under the MMRD Act. As per Section 30B of the MMDR Act, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of every district have been designated as the Special Judge. In view of Section 30B of the MMDR Act and the notification issued, as noted above, it is crystal clear that the Judicial Magistrates of First Class, have no right to entertain any complaint where the allegations fall under the MMDR Act or the Rules thereunder and with allied offences. The factual matrix of this case shows the Geologist- respondent No.3 ha filed a private complaint before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Ranebennur, against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/S 4(1), 4(1-A) and 21 of MMRD Act, 1957 Rules 3(1), 36, 42, 44(1) of KMMCR Rules, 1994 and under Rules 3-B and 3-C of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 read with Section 16(1) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Ranebennur, after receiving the complaint ha taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused vide orders dated 02.11.2016 by regitering a Criminal Case in C.C. No. 692/2016. The said registration of the case in C.C. No. 692/2016. The said registration of the cae taking of cognizance and issuing of process is without jurisdiction by the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:15715 CRL.P No. 10780 of 2023 Magistrate. In this background, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned JMFC could not have entertained the complaint, taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the said order requires to be quashed. The complaint averments discloses the specific allegations of petitioners having committed offences under Sections 4(1), 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, under Section 3(1), 36, 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, under Section 3(1), 6-A(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, and under Section 3B and 3C of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012."

¶30

The offence punishable under Section 30B of the MMRD Act specifically states that the offence under the Act and the Rules can be taken only by a Special Court.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:814 CRL.P No. 100125 of 2025

¶33

In light of the legal principles established by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate lacks authority. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The petition stands allowed.

¶36

ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.C (MMDR) No.04/2024 pending on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal is hereby quashed.

¶37

iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent to file a complaint before the appropriate Bench if permissible in law.

¶38

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶39

BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

M/S Sai Mahalakshmi Stone Crusher, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sai Mahalakshmi Stone Crusher, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Perk Inn International Ltd. Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Developm

Fareeda Begum and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Devaraj Alias Devendrappa S/O Shivanand Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Shivaraj S/O Basavaraj Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M B Angadi Vs the State by Circle Police Inspector

Naveen Ganapatisa Jitoori Vs the State of Karnataka