M/S Balaji Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2735 CRL.P No. 100460 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100460 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

M/S. BALAJI MINERALS, PROP. ANAND PRASAD S/O. K.S DURGA PRASAD, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 1^ST FLOOR, PKV PLAZA, COLLEGE ROAD, HOSAPETE-VIJAYANAGAR-583228, (LICENSE NO.KPLSC07).

¶6

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

¶7

…PETITIONERS

¶8

(BY SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:22 +0530

¶11

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.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, PASS AN ORDER TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS I.E. ACCUSED NO. 4 AND 14, C.C.NO. 3305/2022, (ARISING OUT OF PCR NO. 425/2022) PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOPPAL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC. 9(2)(vi), 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1), 17(2) OF KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS ACT-2011 AND RULED 3c(3)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2735 CRL.P No. 100460 of 2025

¶17

AND 3c(5) OF KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS RULES-2012 AND P/U/SEC. 16(1) AND 17(1) OF KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS ACT-2011.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioners challenge the cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Sections 9(2)(vi), 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1), and 17(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2011”), and Rules 3-C(3) and 3-C(5) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2012”), which are punishable under Sections 16(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 2011.

¶22

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), alleging that the petitioners were granted a license for stone crushing and, during the subsistence of the license, they stacked minerals and carried out stone crushing without paying royalty to the government. Upon perusal of the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, prompting the petitioners to approach this Court.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that stacking minerals without payment of royalty constitutes a contravention under Rule 3-C of the Rules of 2012. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3-C mandates that the competent authority must be given an opportunity to take action before initiating penal proceedings under

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2735 CRL.P No. 100460 of 2025

¶25

the Act. Furthermore, Section 15 of the Act of 2011 provides an alternative remedy of appeal against any order passed by the competent authority after hearing the petitioners. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, without following the prescribed procedure, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

¶26

In support of his argument, the learned counsel relies on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.101794/2021.

¶27

In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent contends that the petitioners, by stacking minerals without paying royalty to the government, have committed an offence under Rule 3-C of the Rules of 2012, which is punishable under Section 16 of the Act of 2011. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, after rightly considering the averments made in the complaint, has taken cognizance, which does not warrant interference.

¶28

The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been considered.

¶29

Rule 3-C of the Rules of 2012 states that no crusher licensee shall receive, store, or cause to store any minerals or processed minerals on its premises without a valid mineral dispatch permit issued in accordance with the mineral concession rules.

¶30

Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3-C further provides that if any mineral or its processed product is found on the premises of a

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2735 CRL.P No. 100460 of 2025

¶32

crusher licensee without proper royalty payment, the competent authority shall, after granting an opportunity of hearing, initiate penal action under the provisions of the Act.

¶33

Therefore, before initiating any penal action, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the crusher licensee. Upon considering the reply, if any, submitted by the licensee, the competent authority must pass an appropriate order. Thereafter, the licensing authority may pass an order canceling the license, imposing a fine, or initiating criminal prosecution.

¶34

Section 15 of the Act of 2011 provides for an appeal against any order passed by the licensing authority, stating that such an appeal shall lie before the Regional Commissioner.

¶35

In similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.101794/2021, while dealing with similar provisions under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, referred to Section 48 of the said Act, which provides for the compounding of offences, and Section 50, which provides for an appeal.

¶36

In reliance on the decision in Shalini K. v. Inspector of Legal Metrology & Another (W.P. No.51116/2017 (GM-RES) and connected cases), it was held that under Section 50(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, an appeal is available to an offender against any decision taken based on a reply submitted for offences punishable under Sections 27 to 39 of the said Act. It was further held that where the State, without passing an order, directly registers a complaint and sets criminal law into motion, such action would be legally unsustainable.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2735 CRL.P No. 100460 of 2025

¶38

In the present case, the licensing authority, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without passing an order, has directly registered a criminal case to prosecute them. Consequently, the filing of the complaint and the subsequent taking of cognizance stand vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2011 and the Rules of 2012.

¶39

Under these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶40

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The petition is allowed .

¶43

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC.No.3305/2022 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, insofar as it relates to the petitioners-accused are hereby quashed.

¶44

iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent to initiate such proceedings in accordance with law, after passing an order by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein as enumerated in (5) of Rule 3-C of 2012.

¶45

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶46

AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

M/S Balaji v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Balaji 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

Sri Kumar S/O Vithalgouda Goudar Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna v. Gudisagar Vs State of Karnataka

Anil Kumar Gudisagar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sabakka Vs Smt Sumitra W/O Siddaram Karidakannavar

Shri Kumar S/O Yashwant Dhamannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bharat S/O Basavaraj Bommai Vs the State of Karnataka