Karnataka High CourtM/S Saraswathi Stone Crusher vs State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2018Author:K.N.PhaneendraBench:K.N.Phaneendra1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1383 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

M/s. Saraswathi Stone Crusher
Represented by its Proprietor
Smt. Saraswathi
W/o. K.Ramesh
Aged about 46 years
R/at No.181, SFC, 4th Phase
Yelahanka New Town
Bengaluru - 560 064.
                                            ...PETITIONER

(By    Sri.   Ashok  Harnahalli,   Senior   Counsel   for
       Sri.Subramanya R, Advocate)

AND:

1.     State of Karnataka
       Through Gudibande Police Station
       Chikkaballapura Sub Division
       Chikkaballapura, represented
       By its Public Prosecutor
       High Court of Karnataka
       Bengaluru - 560001.

2.     Sri. Sandeep G.U.
       Geologist,
       Department of Mines and Geology
       Office: Chikkaballapura
                               2



      Chikkaballapura District - 562101
      Karnataka.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. S.Rachaiah, HCGP for R1 & 2)


       This Criminal Petition is filed underSection 482of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint dated 25.10.2017
pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and
JMFC,     Gudibande,    Chikkaballapura,     Chikkaballapura
District, quash the FIR in Cr.No.342/2017 registered by
the    respondent    No.1     Gudibande     Police   Station,
Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, Chikkaballapura for the
offences under Rule 42 of Karnataka Mining Minerals
Concession Rules andSec.4(1),4(1A)of Mines and
Minerals Development Act andSec.3(1)of Karnataka
Regulation of Stone Crushers Act andSection 379of IPC,
pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and
JMFC,     Gudibande,    Chikkaballapura,     Chikkaballapura
District and consequently quash all other proceedings
thereto against the petitioner.


      This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following:


                         ORDERLearned High Court Government Pleader takes notice

for respondent Nos.1 and 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned   High   Court    Government      Pleader   for   the

respondents. Perused the records.32.      The petitioner has sought for quashing of FIR

in Crime No.342/2017 on the file of Gudibande Police,

Chikkaballapura Sub-division registered for the offences

underSection 379of IPC, underSection 3(1)of Karnataka

Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, underSections

4(1)and4(1A)of the Mines and Minerals (Development

and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 42 of the Karnataka

Minor Minerals Consistent Rules, 1994.3.      The factual aspects emanate from the records

are   that,   one   Sandeep    G.U.,   Geologist   attached    to

Chikkaballapura District lodged an information to the

Gudibande     Police   on   which   basis   a   case   has   been

registered in Crime No.342/2017 which is sought to be

quashed in this case. In the said information report, it is

specifically stated that the complainant has been working

as a Geologist and on the direction issued by the Deputy

Commissioner and Chairman, District Task Force (Mines)

to detect the illegal stone crushers units and to take

appropriate action, in this context, on 25.10.2017, the said4Geologist along with others have visited Sy.No.404 in

Yalagala village, Chikkaballapur Taluk.         They found stone

crushers by name Saraswathi Stone Crusher running

without licence or permission from the Government and

they were crushing the stones and some small pieces of

crushed stones were found on the spot.             Therefore, it is

alleged that they were doing the crushing of stones

illegally without licence or permission and they were

making arrangements to transport the crushed stones

illegally in order to cheat the Government, etc. As such,

the case has been registered against them.4.     It   is   argued    that,     the   police    have   no

jurisdiction to investigate by registering a case underSection 154of Cr.P.C., in view of the special provision

contained   underSection   22of    Mines    and    Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which reads as

under:"22. Cognizance of offences:- No Court
     shall take cognizance of any offence punishable
     under this Act or any rules made there under5except upon complaint in writing made by a
         person authorized in this behalf by the Central
         Government or the State Government."5.Section 17of the Karnataka Regulation of

Stone Crushers Act, 2011 reads as under:"17. Cognizance of offences:- (1) No
         Court shall take cognizance of an offence
         punishable under this Act or any rules made
         thereunder except upon complaint in writing
         made by a person authorized in this behalf by
         the Licensing Authority.(2)   No Court other than the Court of
         Judicial Magistrate First Class shall try any
         offence punishable under this Act."6.      On careful perusal and understanding of the

above said provisions, a private complaint is contemplated

by   a        competent   authority   appointed   by   the   State

Government or the Central Government to be filed before

the Magistrate as perSection 22of the said Act.

Therefore, no FIR can be registered underSection 154of

Criminal Procedure Code nor police can investigate and6submit any report underSection 173of Criminal Procedure

Code nor the Magistrate can take cognizance of such

offences if a report submitted underSection 173of

Criminal Procedure Code.      Therefore, to that extent, FIR

registered by the Police is liable to be quashed.7.    The learned counsel also drawn my attention

that there is absolutely no material to show that the

offence underSection 379of Indian Penal Code is

constituted in any manner.Section 378of Indian Penal

Code which is the definition clause which defines what

amounts to theft. The said section reads as under:-"378. Theft-Whoever, intending to take
      dishonestly any moveable property out of the
      possession   of   any   person     without    that
      person's consent, moves that property in
      order to such taking, is said to commit theft."8.    On careful perusal of the above said provision,

it is clear that in order to attractSection 379of IPC, there

must be movement of any movable property out of7possession of any person who is said to be the owner

without that person's consent.          Any person moves such

property in order to such taking, then it amount to

committing of theft. In this particular case, FIR does not

disclose any property was found on the spot which was

even attempted to be transported, without the consent of

the    Government       and    there   is   no        mention   of   any

Government property and Government property was not

the subject matter of theft and there is no mention that

the petitioners were making arrangements to transport

such property.9.        The mahazar drawn in this particular case

wherein it is categorically stated that there were no

property found on the spot which were liable to be seized.

Therefore, in the absence of any subject matter of theft

being seized in this case nor shown in the FIR or in the

mahazar, it cannot be said that offence underSection 379of    IPC   is    attracted.    Therefore,       in    the   facts   and

circumstances of the present case, none of the offences8are constituted nor police can initiate any proceedings

against the petitioner by registering FIR underSection 154of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in my opinion, whole proceedings are

vitiated and FIR is liable to be quashed.10.   At this time, the learned HCGP submits that

the provision underSection 22of Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 andSection 17of

the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 as

noted above empowers the competent authority to lodge a

private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Therefore, the State may be permitted to file appropriate

complaint, if need arises in accordance with law.11.   There   is    no   embargo   on   the   competent

authority to file appropriate complaint because law itself

provides the same and there is no need for this Court to

provide such a liberty.12.   In the above facts and circumstances of this

case, I proceed to pass the following:9ORDER

        The petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR registered

in     Crime   No.342/2017    by     the   Gudibande   Police,

Chikkaballapur Sub-division for the offences punishable

underSection 379of IPC, underSection 3(1)of Karnataka

Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, underSections

4(1)and4(1A)of the Mines and Minerals (Development

and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 42 of the Karnataka

Minor Minerals Consistent Rules, 1994 and all further

proceedings are hereby quashed.Sd/-JUDGE

Prs*