Surakshit Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3154 WP No. 100168 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100168 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SURAKSHIT ENTERPRISES PROP- VIJAYKUMAR S/O. PALAKSHA BAKALE, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. OPP. MAHESHWARI TALKIES, KOPPAL-583234.

¶7

S. VIJAY BASKAR REDDY S/O. NARASIMHA REDDY AGE. 55 YEARS, NO.432, 15^TH WARD, AMARAVATI, HOSAPETE-583211, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.

¶8

UMAPATI STONE CRUSHER PROP. CHANDRAKANT S/O. BASAYYA MAHANTYAMATH, AGE. 62 YEARS, R/O. NO.9/6/602/5, WARD NO.9, BLOCK 6, KPL, KEB ROAD, KOPPAL-583234.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OFKARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:30 +0530

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KOPPAL TOWN, KOPPAL TALUK AND DIST.-583234, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3154 WP No. 100168 of 2025

¶18

LEARNED MAGISTRATE ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOPPAL IN C.C.NO.758/2019 FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 4(1) AND 4(1A) OF THE MMRD ACT AND PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 21 OF MMRD ACT AND UNDER SECTION 200 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.758/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AGAINST THE PETITIONERS I.E. ACCUSED NO.1, 2 AND 4 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of the MMRD Act, and under Section 21 of the MMRD Act, is impugned in this petition.

¶23

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.PC, alleging that the petitioners had unauthorizedly transported building stones without the necessary permission and license as required under the Act and the Rules, and that the license granted to the petitioners for crushing stones had expired.

¶24

The issue of whether the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence has already been examined by this Court in Crl.P No.100525/2017, wherein paragraphs 3 and 4 observed as follows:

¶25

"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

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3154 WP No. 100168 of 2025

¶28

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:-

¶29

“ 30B.Constitution of Special Courts. -

¶30

(1) The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences for contravention of the provisions of subsection (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.

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

(4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court may prefer an - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15715 CRL.P No. 10780 of 2023 appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of such order.”

¶34

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 - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:15715 CRL.P No. 10780 of 2023 Magistrate. In this background, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned JMFC could not have entertained the complaint,

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3154 WP No. 100168 of 2025

¶36

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."

¶37

In the cited decision, it is ruled that the cognizance of the offence under the Act and the Rules can be taken only by a Special Court.

¶38

In light of the legal principles established by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate lacks authority. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) The petition stands allowed .

¶41

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.758/2019 pending on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal is hereby quashed.

¶42

iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent to file a complaint before the appropriate Court if permissible in law.

¶43

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶44

AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Surakshit Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surakshit Enterprises 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

Shri Aravindagouda S/O Shivasharanappa Gouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sundar S/O Mallappa Kundekar Vs Shri Nitin Ishwar Dukare

Huvanagouda S/O. Hanamanthgouda Antaradani, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Vijay S/O Basappa Hukkeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Samundarsingh S/O Nepalsingh Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj B M S/O Umapati B Vs the State of Karnataka