Sri Pranav S Kodgi Vs the State by Geologist

THE STATE BY GEOLOGIST, MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF SENIOR GEOLOGIST, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001

¶12

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. THEJESH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.479/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SRINGERI, CHIKKAMAGALURU ARISING OUT OF PCR.NO.44/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 4(1), 4(1A), 21 OF MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT AND SECTION 3(1), 36(3), 42, 43 AND 44 OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1994 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND AWARD COSTS OF THIS PETITION.

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:2786 CRL.P No. 5200 of 2024

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶22

"A) Quash the proceedings in CC No.479/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMfc, Sringeri, Chikmagalur arising out of PCR No.44/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1-A), 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 3(1), 36(3), 42, 43 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 as per Annexure-A.

¶23

B) Award costs of this petition, and

¶24

C) Pass any other appropriate relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶25

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶26

HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶27

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to an alleged represented said to have been submitted by one Shabareesh, the respondent filed a private complaint in PCR No.44/2023 against the petitioner-accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1-a), 9, 23(c)(1)(2) and Section 24(1)(e) r/w. Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules 3(1), 36(3), 42,

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:2786 CRL.P No. 5200 of 2024

¶30

43 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994,

¶31

on the ground that the petitioner was doing illegal mining illegal activity on the subject land. In pursuance of the aforesaid private complaint, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioner by registering proceedings in Spl.C.No.39/2024 (C.C.No.479/2023) and as such petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶32

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction or power or authority of law to take cognizance of the offences as against the petitioner since it is only the Special Court headed by a District and Sessions Judge, who had the power and jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences. It is also submitted that apart from the fact that the petitioner was merely putting up a structure to his property, so as to prevent soil erosion, there were no mining activities carried on by the petitioner on the subject land and the impugned complaint does not contain the requisite ingredients so as to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:2786 CRL.P No. 5200 of 2024

¶35

In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:

¶36

i. Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. State of Karnataka - (2021) 19 SCC 62.

¶37

ii. Sri. Vivek Vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.6279/2017 dated 15.11.2017.

¶38

iii. Sri. Sathya Sai Central Trust Vs. State of Karnataka - ILR 2022 KARNATAKA 3127.

¶39

iv. Arjun Anjaneya Reddy vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.9087/2024 dated 27.09.2024

¶40

Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent submits

¶41

that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner, which is as hereunder:

¶43

"Case called out. On perusal, this is Private complaint by Geologist of Mines and Minerals Department, Chikkamagaluru against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 4(1), 4(1-A), 21 of MMDR Act, 1957 and 3(1), 36(3), 42, 43 and 44 of Karnataka Minor

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:2786 CRL.P No. 5200 of 2024

¶46

Mineral Concession Rules 1994 and as the complainant is a Government Servant the recording of sworn statement is dispensed with. Accordingly, the office is hereby directed to register the case as Criminal case against the accused and issued NBW against the accused.

¶47

Accordingly, the PCT stands disposed off.

¶48

Call on 25.10.2023."

¶49

A perusal of the aforesaid order will clearly indicate

¶50

that the same is a completely/totally cryptic, non-speaking, unreasoned and laconic order without any application of mind, whatsoever as to why the learned Magistrate was proceeding to take cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioner. In fact, the learned Magistrate has not assigned valid or cogent reasons as to how the alleged offences had been made out as against the petitioner and has not considered the relevant statutory provisions and as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

¶51

In the result, I pass the following:

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:2786 CRL.P No. 5200 of 2024

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The Criminal Petition is partly allowed.

¶56

(ii) The impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed in PCR No.44/2023 (C.C.No.479/2023) by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, taking cognizance of the offences as against the petitioner is hereby set aside.

¶57

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration of the issue/question regarding taking cognizance bearing in mind the observations made in this order, as well as the aforesaid judgments and relevant statutory provisions and in accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶59

BMC

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Pranav S Kodgi v. the State by Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pranav S Kodgi v. the State by Geologist

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

Smt Mamatha S Vs State of Karnataka

B K Manju Vs Stae by Bagalur Police Station

Smt Sumithra Vs State of Karnataka

Megha Arora, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Arun Kumar R Wali Vs H.N. Naveen Kumar

Sri. K S Raghu Vs State of Karnataka