High Court of Karnataka Disposes of Twelve Criminal Petitions Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Seeking Quashing of Mining Offence Proceedings. Petitions Sought to Quash Proceedings Under Sections 379, 511 IPC and Various Provisions of MMRD Act and KMMC Rules, Raising Common Question of Law.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

Twelve criminal petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, seeking to quash proceedings arising from various police stations and pending before different magistrate courts. The cases involved offences registered under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, primarily Sections 379 and 511, and under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, specifically Sections 4(1), 4(1A), and 21, along with certain rules of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. The petitioners contended that simultaneous proceedings under both the IPC and the MMRD Act were not maintainable and raised a common question of law. The High Court, with the consent of the petitioners' counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader, took up the matters for final disposal at the admission stage. The court observed that although the cases arose from different crime numbers and police stations, the issue involved was purely a question of law and common to all, and therefore they were heard together. The judgment noted the prayers of the petitions and the offences invoked, but the provided text does not contain the final reasoning or the operative part of the order. The court reserved the matters for judgment and pronounced the order on February 6, 2019, but the specific directions or quashing orders are not included in the available excerpt.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Maintainability of Dual Offences Under IPC and MMRD Act - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 379, 511 - Multiple petitions were filed seeking quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground that simultaneous registration under IPC and MMRD Act is impermissible. The High Court consolidated the petitions as they raised a common question of law. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment. (Paras 3-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings for offences under both the MMRD Act and IPC can be sustained simultaneously

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  • maintainability of simultaneous offences under IPC and MMRD Act
  • common question of law in multiple cases
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 86

Criminal Petition Nos. 101274/2018, 101815/2018, 101986/2018, 102023/2018, 102059/2018, 102060/2018, 102061/2018, 102062/2018, 102107/2018, 102122/2018, 102126/2018, 102281/2018

2019-02-06

H.P. Sandesh

Smt. Sumangala A Chakalabbi, Sri Prashant F Goudar, Sri Harshawardhan M Patil, Sri Jagadish Patil, Sri K. Anand Kumar, Sri Praveen K Uppar (HCGP)

Ravi @ Ravindra Shetty, Atyanarayana Shetty, Saddam Ankali, Rasool Ankali, Balesh Naik, Satteppa Naik, Shivappa Kudarimani, Shivaji Dable, Anil Patil, Sunil Kumbar, Ratan Patil, Yallappa Gurav, Lagamanna Basaragi, Satteppa Basaragi, Basappa Nirvani, Kempanna Mallaholi

State of Karnataka (through Gangavathi Rural Police Station, Yamakanamardi Police Station, Katkol Police Station, Belagavi Rural Police Station, Kudachi Police Station etc.)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in various cases involving mining and mineral offences.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of entire criminal proceedings pending before different magistrate courts.

Filing Reason

The proceedings were initiated for offences under IPC and MMRD Act, which petitioners contend cannot coexist, raising common question of law.

Issues

Whether the criminal proceedings for offences under both the MMRD Act and IPC can be sustained simultaneously.

Judgment Excerpts

Though, all these cases arise out of different crime numbers of different police stations and pending before different Court, since issue involved in the cases is only question of law and the same is common in all these cases, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. The prayer sought in the petitions by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to quash the entire proceedings pending before the different Courts since the respective cases are registered for both the offences under the MMRD Act and Rules and Under IPC.

Procedural History

Various criminal cases were registered against the petitioners across different police stations in Karnataka for offences under the IPC and MMRD Act. After investigation, charge sheets were filed and cases were pending before different Magistrate Courts. The petitioners filed separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court, with the consent of the parties, heard all the petitions together for final disposal as they involved a common question of law. The court reserved judgment and pronounced the order on 06-02-2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 379, 511
  • Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: 4(1), 4(1A), 21, 22, 42
  • Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994: 3, 32, 42, 44(1), 44(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Management's Petitions in Teacher Termination Case. Repeated Denovo Enquiries After Quashing for Non-Compliance of MEPS Rules 36 and 37 Are Not Permissible.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows State Appeal in Gambling Case, Holds No Mandatory Expert Evidence Required to Prove Instruments of Gaming. Evidence of Officer Executing Search Warrant May Be Sufficient Without Corroboration Depending on Facts.