Nagalingappa Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH FOR THE PROCEEDINGS C.C. NO.467/2022 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4(1), 4(1A), 4(2), 21, 23, AND 21(6) OF MMRD ACT AND SECTION 24(a), 24(f), 24(g), 24(gg), 24(h), 73(d), 82B AND 109 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 AND KFR (RULE) 144, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT SANDUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9011 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶26

Heard Shri M.L.Vanti., learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioner and Shri Jairam Siddi., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶28

The petitioner-accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) [Section 528 of BNSS, 2023] to quash entire proceedings in C.C.No.467/2022, pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sandur for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 4(2), 21, 23 and 21 (6) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('MMRD Act' for short) and Sections 24(a), 24(f), 24(g), 24(gg), 24 (h), 73(d) 82B and 109 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and KFR (Rule) 144.

¶29

Perused the records.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9011 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶33

that in view of establishment of Special Courts to try the offences under Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, learned Civil Judge and JMFC., Sandur has no jurisdiction to try the matter.

¶34

Section 30B of MMRD Act, confers special status

¶35

on the Special Courts and the Government has to establish

¶36

Special Courts for the purpose of trying the offences under MMRD Act. There is no doubt so far as the above aspect is concerned.

¶37

Section 30B of the MMRD Act reads as under:-

¶38

“30B Constitution of Special Courts:

¶39

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.

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9011 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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.”

¶45

7. In view of the above proposition of law, in order

¶46

to deal with the matters under the above enactment, the

¶47

Government has issued the notification constituting Special Courts for the purpose of dealing with the offences under MMRD Act. As per Section 30B of the MMRD Act, the Prl. District and Sessions Judge of every District have been designated as Special Judge.

¶48

In view of Section 30B of the MMRD Act and the

¶49

notification issued as noted above, it is crystal clear that the Judicial Magistrate First Class has no right to entertain

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9011 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

any complaint, where the cases are filed under MMRD Act or Rules therein and with allied offences.

¶53

In this background, as rightly submitted by learned counsel of the petitioner, learned JMFC could not have entertained the complaint and could not have taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner-accused No.2. The order sheet discloses that on 07.11.2022, learned Civil Judge and JMFC., Sandur took cognizance and issued summons to the accused. Therefore, it is evident that the jurisdiction to try offences under the MMRD Act, with effect from 12.01.2015, vests exclusively with the Special Court, i.e., the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge. However, in the present case, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sandur, has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process against petitioner-accused No.2, which is without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed.

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9011 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

In view of the above said facts and

¶57

circumstances, and in view of the above proposition of law and notification, learned Magistrate has wrongly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued process against the petitioner qua accused No.2. Thus, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate require to be quashed. Hence, the Court passes the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. The petition is allowed.

¶60

ii. The order passed by learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences thereof and issuing summon to the petitioner-accused No.2, are hereby quashed.

¶61

iii. However, the respondent -State is at liberty to file appropriate complaint in accordance with law before the Court having jurisdiction, if need, subject to point of limitation as

¶62