Smt Basavannemma W/O Mallangouda P Patil Vs the State through Mines and Geology Department

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1701 CRL.P No. 104019 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104019 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT BASAVANNEMMA W/O MALLANGOUDA P. PATIL AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE

¶11

SRI ASHOK S/O CHANNAPPA SOMPUR AGED ABOUT 51YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE

¶12

SRI SURESH S/O CHANNAPPA SOMPUR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE

¶13

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.13 15:47:40 +0530

¶15

SRI SHARANAPPA S/O SHIDDAPPA BATAGERI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE

¶16

SRI MUDIYAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA CHALAVADI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE

¶17

SRI THIMMAPPA S/O NINGAPPA HUNAGUND AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE

¶18

SRI VENKARADDY S/O HANUMARADDY HUNUGUND AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1701 CRL.P No. 104019 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI VENKARADDY S/O HANUMARADDY HUNUGUND AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 8 ARE

¶23

R/O BANNIKOPPA VILLAGE, KUKNOOR TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583 238.

¶24

SRI BASAVARAJ S/O TOTAPPA SOMANAKATTE AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE

¶25

SRI MOULASAB S/O RAJASAB ARUNAGI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶26

SRI SHANKARGOUDA S/O AMARAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE,

¶27

SRI SHARANAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA YARASHI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, PETITIONER NO.9 TO 12 ARE R/O BANNIKOPPA VILLAGE KUKNOOR TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT 583 238.

¶28

SRI GAVISIDDAPPA S/O PAKKAPPA CHALAVADI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF TALAKALLA VILLAGE, KUKNOOR TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT 583 232.

¶29

SRI NAGARAJ S/O NINGAPPA GULAGANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF ITAGI VILLAGE, KUKNOOR TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583 232.

¶30

SRI RAVINDRAGOUDA PATIL S/O NINGANGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, THE PROJECT MANAGER, M/S BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED SITE KUKUNOOR TALUK, KOPPAL DIST. 583232,

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1701 CRL.P No. 104019 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

HEAD OFFICE AT NO.8-2-502/1/A JIVI TOWER ROAD, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500034.

¶35

…PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SRI. SUNILKUMAR P. BANGARI, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

THE STATE THROUGH MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY SRI VISHVANATH H V GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KOPPAL 583 231, REPRESENTED BY SPP/HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD 580 008.

¶39

…RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶41

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO THE PETITIONERS (1 TO 15)/ ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 5, ACCUSED NO. 8 TO 11. ACCUSED NO. 15, 16, 17, 19, 21 25, AND ACCUSED NO. 36 PRAYS BEFORE THIS COURT THAT, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C. C. NO. 113 OF 2019 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YELBURGA AT YELBURGA (ITINERARY COURT KUKANOR) FOR ALLEGING OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 (1) (1A) AND SECTION 21(1) AND 21(2) OF MMDR ACT 1957 AND THE SAME WAS REGISTERED PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE GEOLOGIST OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT AT KOPPAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶42

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

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1701 CRL.P No. 104019 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶48

Heard Sri.Sunilkumar P. Bangari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶49

Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶50

“Wherefore, the petitioners (1 to 15)/Accused No.2 to 5, Accused No.8 to 11, accused No.15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25 and Accused No.36 prays before this Hon’ble Court that, kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.113/2019 against the petitioners herein pending in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Yelburga at Yelburga (Itinerary Court Kukanor) alleging offences punishable under Section 4(1)(1A) and Section 21(1) and 21(2) of MMDR Act 1957 and the same was registered pursuant to the private complaint filed by the geologist of Mines and Geology Department at Koppal in the interest of justice.”

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1701 CRL.P No. 104019 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Accused Nos.2 to 11, 15 to 17, 19, 21, 25 and 36 in CC No.113/2019 are the petitioners challenging the issue of the process and further proceedings pursuant to the private complaint filed by the geologist alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(1A), 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (hereinafter ‘MMDR’ for short).

¶54

Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that in Kukanor Taluk, Kukanor Hobli, in the villages of Lakmapur, Talabal, Talkal, Bannikoppa, Itagi, Masabhanchinal, Kukanoor, Dyampur, Adur in the patta lands, on payment of royalty, there was a license for removing the earth (marum).

¶55

In the guise of said license and payment of royalty, huge quantity of the marum has been extracted which has been complained to the Government by the villagers at the first instance and later on, Tahsildar with the help of the officials of Mining Department, visited the spot and conducted spot investigation and noted that prima facie violation has taken place.

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1701 CRL.P No. 104019 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Thereafter, a report was also taken and survey was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses. After considering the area involved in the license and payment of royalty and the extract of marum from those villages, geologist formed prima facie opinion and noted that there are violation of the provisions of MMDR Act and accordingly, filed a private complaint.

¶59

Learned Trial Magistrate after considering the

¶60

material on record, took cognizance of the offences and proceeded with the criminal case.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioners herein would contend that they are no way responsible for the alleged illegal extraction of the minerals from the earth and a false and motivated complaint came to be filed and therefore, sought for quashing of the pending proceedings atleast insofar as present petitioners are concerned who are paying royalty to the Government and are extracting the minerals as per the license permission.

¶62

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grounds of petition by contending that prima facie

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1701 CRL.P No. 104019 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

violations have been noted which is in the form of material that

¶67

is already placed before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶68

This Court, at this stage, cannot hold a mini trial to find out the veracity of the grounds that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner and thus, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶69

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶70

On such perusal of the material on record, the complaint of the geologist is based on the spot inspection and in comparision with the license and payment of royalty in the nine villages of Kukanor H obli, photographs have been taken which is part of the complaint which would prima facie establish that heap of marum h as been extracted which is beyond the permission granted under the license.

¶71

As is rightly contended on behalf of the State, this Court cannot hold a mini trial to find out whether the extraction was within the scope and ambit of the license terms or not.

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1701 CRL.P No. 104019 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Therefore, it is for the parties to make out a case that the extraction of the marum from the areas for which the license has been granted is within the scope and ambit of the terms of license and they have not extracted extra mineral based on the license possessed by them and royalty paid by them.

¶76