Sunil B Nayak Vs Subash Chandra S

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9589 CRL.P No. 13098 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13098 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS)-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUNIL B. NAYAK S/O BILIYA KUPPA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, SHIRALI, BHATKALA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA - 581 354. (EX-MLA) BHATKAL.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SUBASH CHANDRA S AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GEOLOGIST, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KARAVARA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 581 301

¶15

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001. (VIDE ORDER DATED:9/2/2024.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B N., ADDL. SPP)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL IN PCR NO.3/2023 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 4(1), 4(1)(A) OF MMRD ACT AND RULE 3 AND 42 OF

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:9589 CRL.P No. 13098 of 2023

¶21

KMMCR ACT AND GIVING DIRECTIONS TO REGISTER A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS.

¶22

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

¶23

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶24

CORAM:

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is questioning the taking of cognizance in the private complaint registered under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Sec.22 of M.M.R.D. Act. filed by the complainant who is the Geologist from Mines and Geology Department against the accused/petitioner, for the offences punishable under Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) of M.M.R.D Act. and Rule 3 and 42 of K.M.M.C.R. Act.

¶27

Heard Sri. Satish.M.Doddamani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jagadeesha.B.N., Addl. SPP for the respondent.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that he has obtained the lease for a period of 5 years in land bearing R.S.No.1118/4A measuring 20 guntas in Bengre village,

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:9589 CRL.P No. 13098 of 2023

¶31

Bhatkal Taluk, for the purpose of stone crushing from 12.05.2017 and lease period came to end on 11.05.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that he is carrying activities without violating any provisions of law. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner for having violated the terms and conditions of the lease, carrying the mining operations without obtaining the necessary permits and carrying the unauthorized activities and also carrying the mining operations in the forest land. Based on initiation of the private complaint, the cognizance has been taken by the Learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offences. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Learned Magistrate has acted contrary to the provisions of law, there is no proper application of mind. In a mechanical manner and without delving into the merits of the matter the Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance which is illegal and same requires to be set aside. It is also contended that none of the provisions under the M.M.R.D. Act and Rule of the K.M.M.C.R. Act, are applicable to the present facts of the case. It is further contended that in view of certain political rivalry, a false case has been initiated against the petitioner. It is also contended

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9589 CRL.P No. 13098 of 2023

¶33

that the cognizance taken by the Learned Magistrate in the present case is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the

¶34

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs State of UP reported in 2015 6 SCC 287 . On these grounds, he contends that the very initiation of the case and cognizance having taken by learned Magistrate is not sustainable. The same is required to be set aside.

¶35

Learned SPP representing the State contends that the impugned order is evident by itself that the Magistrate has applied his mind by considering the complaint on perusal of the materials placed along with the complaint and came to the conclusion that material placed on record is sufficient to take cognizance, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate is correct and does not call for the interference. The Learned SPP further contends that the judgment relied by the petitioner in the case of Priyanka Srivastava stated supra is not applicable to the present case on hand.

¶36

On careful perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that, the learned Magistrate has clearly stated that on perusal

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:9589 CRL.P No. 13098 of 2023

¶39

of entire materials on record, it is noticed that the facts of the complainant constitute alleged offences. On perusal of material records, prima facie there are sufficient materials to proceed with the case and accordingly has taken the cognizance.

¶40

While taking cognizance, it is relevant for the

¶41

learned Magistrate to be satisfied with the materials placed on record to implicate the accused for initiation for taking cognizance. Therefore, the learned Magistrate would have to apply his mind with regard to the materials available on record. In the present case, there is no such clear application of mind or narration of those materials, except for saying perusal of complaint and on perusal of entire materials on records on the complaint. The learned Magistrate is required to apply his mind to the contents of the complainant and the material, that are placed before the court and thereafter, by applying his mind, initiate further process of taking cognizance. The same is not forthcoming in the impugned order. In these circumstances, this matter has to be remitted back to the trial court to consider the matter afresh and for recording proper reasoning with regard to taking cognizance. It is also seen that the learned Magistrate ought to have referred the matter to the

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:9589 CRL.P No. 13098 of 2023

¶44

Special Court dealing with MP/ MLAs cases, rather than taking cognizance of the matter. Hence, the matter has to be transferred to the Special Court dealing in MLA/ MPs in the Special Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Petition is allowed .

¶47

(ii) The order of taking cognizance dated 12.09.2023 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, in PCR No.3/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 4(1), 4(1) (A) of M.M.R.D Act. and Rule 3 and 42 of K.M.M.C.R. Act is hereby set aside.

¶48

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court.

¶49

(iv) The Learned Magistrate to consider the matter afresh and pass a detail order on application of mind by taking into consideration the observations made by this court.

¶50