Dismissed¶49

Muninarayana B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026CRL.P/1988/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge sheet refused; S.379 IPC theft of mineral (M-sand) case; expired quarrying lease; 800 metric tonnes unexplained M-sand; S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS jurisdiction limited; S.22 MMDR Act bar on police investigation; Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act 2011 S.3(1); MMDR Act 1957 Ss.4(1), 4(1A), 22; Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rules 1994 S.42; liberty to file discharge application before Trial Court; Gudibande Police C.C.No.498/2018; Cr.No.303/2017; Crl.P.No.8671/2017; State of NCT Delhi v. Sanjay referred; Karnataka High Court, R. Nataraj J, order dated 07.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate application for discharge before the Trial Court. ¶49

Muninarayana B Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate application for discharge before the Trial Court.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.498/2018 (charge sheet under Section 379 IPC filed by Gudibande Police) should be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. +2 more

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the quarrying lease granted to the petitioners had expired and 800 metric tonnes of unexplained M-sand was stored at their premises, the source of the mineral not being explained, the filing of the charge sheet under Section 379 IPC is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶48

Key takeaways

The questions whether the petitioners applied for renewal of the licence and obtained consent for discharge cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; if the petitioners have any defence, they must establish it before the Trial Court by filing an appropriate application seeking discharge.ratio¶48
This Court cannot go into the question whether the petitioners were authorized or permitted to remove any mineral for use in their crusher.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 1988 of 2019) under S.482 CrPC by five stone-crusher operators seeking quashing of charge sheet in C.C.No.498/2018 (Gudibande Police, Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Gudibande) for offence under S.379 IPC, arising out of Cr.No.303/2017. Earlier, in Crl.P.No.8671/2017, a Co-ordinate bench (order dated 16.01.2018, relying on State of NCT Delhi v. Sanjay) had, in view of the bar under S.22 MMDR Act, quashed the offences under S.3(1) Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act 2011, Ss.4(1)/4(1A) MMDR Act 1957 and S.42 Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rules 1994, reserving liberty to investigate S.379 IPC. On the charge sheet showing expiry of the quarrying lease and storage of 800 metric tonnes of M-sand of unexplained source, the Court held filing of the charge sheet justified; renewal-of-licence and consent-for-discharge questions being outside S.482 jurisdiction, the petition was dismissed with liberty to move the Trial Court for discharge.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:18827 CRL.P No. 1988 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1988 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUNINARAYANA B S/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.NO.10, LAKSHMI NILAYA, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE-560094.

¶9

GAJENDRABABU R S/O. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. NO.18, KADIGANAHALLI, BETTAHALASURU POST, BANGALORE-560057.

¶10

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SURESH N. KRUSHNA S/O KRISHNAPPA N.T., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.NO.90, ASHWATHANAGARA, R.M.V. 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560094.

¶12

SHIVARAMU N.K. S/O KRISHNAPPA N.T., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O.NO.90, ASHWATHANAGARA, R.M.V. 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560094.

¶13

CHANDRASHEKHARA K.T. S/O. LATE THIPPESWAMY K.C., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O.NO.4, PILLAPPA RAMANNA COMPOUND,

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18827 CRL.P No. 1988 of 2019

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE-560094.

¶17

&PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SMT. ANKITA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-571167, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶20

SANDEEP G.U. GEOLOGIST, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562101

¶21

&RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR

¶23

RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.498/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT GUDIBANDE POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUDIBANDE.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have challenged a charge sheet filed by

¶29

respondent No.1 in C.C.No.498/2018 filed for the offence

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18827 CRL.P No. 1988 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short).

¶33

The respondent No.2 lodged a complaint that after a survey of stone crushers in Gudibande taluk, he found 7 stone crushing units indulging in unlawful activities. Based on the same, a case in Cr.No.303/2017 was filed for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2011' for short), Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act, 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'MMDR Act' for short) and also Section 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rules, 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1994' for short).

¶34

This was questioned by the petitioners before this Court in Crl.P.No.8671/2017. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 16.01.2018, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of NCT Delhi Vs. Sanjay - AIR 2015 SCC 75 and held that in view of the specific bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, the police could file a final report for an offence punishable under Sections 378 and 379 of IPC. It was therefore held that the

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:18827 CRL.P No. 1988 of 2019

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

police cannot register a case for an offence under Section 3(1) of Act, 2011 and Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of the MMDR Act and Section 42 of the Rules, 1994. Consequently, this Court allowed the Criminal Petition in-part and quashed the offences under Section 3(1) of Act, 2011 and Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of the MMDR Act and Section 42 of the Rules, 1994 and liberty was reserved to the police to investigate an offence under Section 379 of IPC. Based on the above, respondent No.1 after conducting the investigation has filed a charge sheet for an offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. Therefore the petitioners are before this Court challenging the charge sheet.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a perusal of the charge sheet would show that the petitioners have not committed any offence under Section 379 of IPC. She contends that the petitioners are arraigned as accused solely on the premise that 800 metric tonnes of M-sand was stored in a private land. She contends that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have extracted any mineral from any quarry belonging to the State Government and therefore an offence under Section 379 of IPC is not made out.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:18827 CRL.P No. 1988 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that a perusal of the charge sheet would indicate that the quarrying licence granted to the petitioners had expired. He further submits that 800 metric tonnes of M-sand was stored in the property of the petitioners and that the petitioners have not explained the source of the said mineral and therefore, the respondent No.1 felt that the petitioners had committed theft of mineral and was in their custody. He therefore submits that the filing of a charge sheet is justified. Nonetheless, he submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the charge sheet and have any justifiable defence, it is open for them to establish the same before the Trial Court by filing an appropriate application for discharge.

¶44

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. I have perused the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.1.

¶45

Perusal of the charge sheet gives an impression that the quarrying lease granted to the petitioners had expired and that unexplained 800 metric tonnes of M-sand was stored in the premises of the petitioners. The petitioners have not

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18827 CRL.P No. 1988 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

explained the source from which the said mineral was procured for use in their crusher. Therefore, the filing of a charge sheet in the facts and circumstances of the case is justified. Though, the petitioners claim that they have applied for renewal of the licence and that consent for discharge was also granted by the department, these questions cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If the petitioners have any defence, it is open for them to establish the same before the Trial Court by filing an appropriate application seeking discharge. This Court cannot go into the question whether the petitioners were authorized or permitted to remove any mineral for use in their crusher.

¶49

In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate application for discharge. If an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶50

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Muninarayana B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muninarayana B v. the 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

Sri Ghouse Khan Vs State of Harihara

Mr.Sandeep Vishwanath Vs Mr.Anush Martio James

Naresh R. Punjabi Vs Smt. Kavitha S. Punjabi

Thomas Mathew Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganesh D S Vs State of Karnataka by

Niranjan G S Vs the State of Karnataka