Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench entertained a batch of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending before various magistrate courts. The proceedings arose out of multiple FIRs registered by different police stations in Karnataka, alleging illegal transportation of minor minerals and offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically Sections 379 and 511, read with Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and Rules 3, 32, 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistence Rules, 1994. The petitioners, including drivers, owners, and bearers of vehicles, contended that the police lacked jurisdiction to register FIRs and conduct investigations for offenses under the MMRD Act and the Rules because Section 22 of the Act mandates that cognizance of such offenses can only be taken upon a complaint made by an authorized officer. The respondent State, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, opposed the petitions. Since all petitions raised an identical question of law regarding the competence of the police to act under the MMRD Act, the Court heard them together for final disposal by a common order. The Court reserved orders on 09.01.2019. The available text of the judgment ends abruptly during the tabulation of case details and does not include the Court’s analysis, reasoning, or final decision. Therefore, the outcome of the petitions cannot be determined from the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21, 22 - The Court considered multiple petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated for offences under the MMRD Act and IPC on the ground that the police had no authority to register FIR for MMRD offences without a complaint by an authorized person under Section 22. The common question of law was whether the proceedings were maintainable. The judgment text is incomplete and does not record the final decision. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether proceedings under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 can be initiated on a police report; and whether the continuance of such proceedings is an abuse of process of court.
Law Points
- Section 22 of MMRD Act restricts cognizance
- police cannot register FIR for offences under the Act without complaint by authorized person
- Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoked for quashing
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 87
Criminal Petition No. 101274/2018 c/w Criminal Petition Nos. 101815/2018, 101986/2018, 102023/2018, 102059/2018, 102060/2018, 102061/2018, 102062/2018, 102107/2018, 102122/2018, 102126/2018 & 102281/2018
Smt. Sumangala A. Chakalabbi, Sri Prashant F. Goudar, Sri Harshawardhan M. Patil, Sri Jagadish Patil, Sri K. Anand Kumar, Sri Praveen K. Uppar
Ravi @ Ravindra Shetty and Atyanarayana (Lead Petition)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under IPC and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of entire proceedings pending before various Magistrate courts on the ground that police had no jurisdiction to register FIR and investigate without a complaint by an authorized person under Section 22 of MMRD Act.
Filing Reason
The police had registered FIRs and initiated proceedings against petitioners for illegal transportation of minor minerals, leading to charge sheets under IPC and MMRD Act. Petitioners contended that the cognizance of offences under MMRD Act could only be taken on complaint by authorized officer, thus the proceedings were without jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the registration of FIR and subsequent proceedings under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 by the police is legally permissible in view of Section 22 of the Act which restricts cognizance to complaints by authorized persons.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that the criminal proceedings for offences under MMRD Act and Rules are not maintainable as the police lacked jurisdiction to register FIR in the absence of a complaint by an authorized officer under Section 22 of the Act.
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
Multiple petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench. Petitions were heard together on a common question of law. Court reserved orders on 09.01.2019 and pronounced on 06.02.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 379, 511
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: 4(1), 4(1A), 21, 22, 42
- Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistence Rules, 1994: 3, 32, 42, 44(1), 44(2)
