Allowed¶71

Sudhakar Shetty v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2025CRL.P/10097/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jurisdiction of Special Court under Section 30(B) MMDR Act versus ordinary Magistrate; quashing of F.I.R./proceedings for MMDR Act offences; BNS 2023 Sections 303(2), 3(5), 62 read with MMDR Act Sections 4(1A), 21(4); reliance on Coordinate Bench ruling in Sundaresha H.K. v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.10780/2023, 19.04.2024); petition under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC; Karkala Town Police Station, Udupi District; Karnataka High Court, single judge, decided 23.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. in Crime No.94/2025 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C Court, Karkala, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, are quashed. ¶71

Sudhakar Shetty Vs State of Karnataka by — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. in Crime No.94/2025 (offences under Sections 303(2), 3(5), 62 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4(1A), 21(4) of the MMDR Act) pending before the Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C Court, Karkala, are permissible in law, given that complaints involving offences under the MMDR Act must be filed before the Special Court constituted under Section 30(B) of the MMDR Act and not before the ordinary Magistrate.

¶36

Court's answer

The impugned proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate are impermissible in law, since a complaint for offences under the MMDR Act has to be necessarily filed before the Special Court constituted under Section 30(B) of the MMDR Act and not before the learned Magistrate, as held by this Court in Sundaresha H.K. v. State of Karnataka.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Since the issue in controversy is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sundaresha H.K.'s case, the impugned proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. in Crime No.94/2025 deserve to be quashed.

¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.528 BNSS (S.482 CrPC) by two accused seeking quashing of proceedings arising from F.I.R. in Crime No.94/2025 of Karkala Town Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5) and 62 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4(1A) and 21(4) of the MMDR Act, pending before the Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C Court, Karkala. Following the Coordinate Bench decision in Sundaresha H.K. v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.10780/2023, decided 19.04.2024), the Court held that proceedings under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act cannot be entertained by the ordinary Magistrate, the complaint having to be filed before the Special Court constituted under Section 30(B) of the MMDR Act; the issue being directly and squarely covered, the petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings were quashed in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27781 CRL.P No. 10097 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10097 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SUDHAKAR SHETTY

¶11

(AS PER ADHAR CARD) S/O KORAGA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶12

R/AT DURGADAYA, JODURASTHE, KUKKUNDOOR POST AND VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DIST-574117

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

USHA S SHETTY, (AS PER ADHAR CARD) W/O SUDHAKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT DURGADAYA, JODURASTHE, KUKKUNDOOR POST AND VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DIST-574117

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. PRATHEEK R. SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:27781 CRL.P No. 10097 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SHIVA KUMAR S R PSI, POLICE OFFICER, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, POLICE OFFICER, KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION, KASABA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI-574104.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT SOWMYA R. HCGP)

¶25

CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST HIM IN CR.NO.94/2025 OF KARKALA TOWN P.S, FOR THE O/P/U/S 303(2),3(5),62 OF THE BNS AND SEC.4(1A) 21(4) OF MMRD ACT 1957, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT KARKALA UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioners – accused seeks quashing of the

¶29

impugned proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. in Crime no.94/2025 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C Court, Karkala, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 303(2),

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:27781 CRL.P No. 10097 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

3(5) and 62 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4(1A) and 21(4) of the MMDR Act and for other reliefs.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶35

HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶36

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the impugned proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate which is impermissible in law since the private complaint has to be necessarily filed before the Special Court constituted under Section 30(B) of the MMDR Act and not before the learned Magistrate as held by this Court in the case of Sundaresha H.K. and another

¶37

Vs. the State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.10780/2023 dated

¶38

19.04.2024 ( Annexure D) wherein it is held as under:

¶39

“Petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.136/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri arising out of PCR No.26/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1a), 9, 23C(1)(2) & 24(1) R/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, MMRD Act) .

¶40

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶41

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no compliance of Section 30(B) of the MMRD Act in the present case. The private complaint is required to be filed in

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:27781 CRL.P No. 10097 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

special courts and the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. He submits that this Court in identical circumstances in Crl.P.No.100525/2017 disposed of on 22.3.2017 has considered this aspect of the matter and has quashed the proceedings.

¶46

4 Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, however does not the dispute that there is no compliance of Section 30(B) of the MMRD Act in the present case.

¶47

5. The material on record would go to show that private complaint has been filed against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences before the court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences and thereafter case was registered against the petitioners in C.C.No.136/2023. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.100525/2017 at the paragraph Nos.3 and 4 has observed as follows:-

¶48

"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:-

¶49

“30B.Constitution of Special Courts.- (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,

¶50

as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:27781 CRL.P No. 10097 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

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

¶55

(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.

¶56

(4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court may prefer an appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of such order.”

¶57

4. 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 Magistrate. In this

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:27781 CRL.P No. 10097 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

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."

¶62

6. Under the circumstances, the impugned criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Sringeri for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1a), 9, 23C(1)(2) & 24(1) R/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 cannot be sustained.

¶63

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶64

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.136/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri arising out of PCR No.26/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1a), 9, 23C(1)(2) & 24(1) R/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is hereby quashed”

¶65

The issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sundaresha ’s case supra and consequently, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶66

In the result, I pass the following:

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:27781 CRL.P No. 10097 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶72

(ii) The impugned proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. in Crime no.94/2025 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C Court, Karkala, in so far as the petitioners are

¶73

concerned, is hereby quashed.

¶74

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶75

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Sudhakar Shetty v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Shetty v. State of Karnataka by

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

Axis Bank Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Amith Yadav H J Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Lekshmy Vijay v G Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri. Ramana. v, Vs State of Karnataka

Kotresha H M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sayed Sulaiman @ Tenkasi Suleman Vs State by Vyalikaval P S