SRI. C.K. DEVARAJ vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO.28733 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C.K. DEVARAJ
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S SRI BHAIRAVESHWAR JELLY
UTPADANA GATAKA
S/O KALE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
D3/4600, BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA
ND
22 CROSS, V V NAGAR, KALLAHALLI
MANDYA DISTRICT – 571401
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR
GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY, MANDYA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
Digitally
signed by R
MANJUNATHA
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL THE
RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 13.08.2021 IN C.C.No.1238/2021 PASSED BY THE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SRIRANGAPATNA VIDE ANNEXURE-A, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF
THE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 200 OF CRPC FOR THE
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 22 AND SECTION 4(1), 4(1-
A), 21(1) OF THE MMDR ACT AND 42(1) 3(1) OF KMMC RULES,
SECTION 3C(1) AND 2 OF KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE
CRUSHER ACT SECTION 21(1) OF THE MMDR ACT AND RULE
44 OF THE KMMC RULES AND CONSEQUENTLY SEEKING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL
C.C.NO.162/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-
A1 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. Petitioner herein has approached this Court with the
following prayer:
“WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to :
(a) CALL the relevant records which ultimately
resulted in passing of the impugned order dated
13.8.2021 in CC No.1238/2021 vide Annexure-A;
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
(b) ISSUE a writ, order or directions in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
13.08.2021 in C.C.No.1238/2021 passed by the
learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Srirangapatna vide Annexure-A; taking cognisance
of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.PC.
for the alleged violation of Section 22 and Section
4(1), 4(1-A), 21(1) of the MMDR Act and 42(1)
3(1) of KMMC Rules. Section 3C(1) and 2 of
Karnataka regulation of Stone Crusher Act Section
21(1) of the MMDR Act and Rule 44 of the KMMC
Rules and consequently seeking to quash the
entire proceedings in Special C.C.No.162/2023 on
the file of the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Mandya vide Annexure A-1
(c) ISSUE any other appropriate writ, order or
directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under
the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.”
3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of
the present petition are as under:
4. Authorized Representative on behalf of the State
from Geological Department has approached the jurisdictional
Magistrate at Srirangapatna, Mandya District with a private
complaint under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
to as ‘MM(D&R)’ Act] with Section 200 of Code of Criminal
Procedure alleging that petitioner herein had applied for
permission to commence the stone crusher business in land
bearing Sy.Nos.164/1, 164/2, 164/3 of Jakkanahalli Village and
even before the permission could be granted, operation of
crusher unit has taken place and therefore sought for action for
the offence punishable under Section 21 (1) of MM(D&R) Act,
1957.
5. Very registration of the case and taking cognizance
is called in question by the petitioner on the following grounds:
That the impugned of the learned Magistrate vide
Annexure-A taking cognisance of complaint in CC
No.1238/2021 suffers from want of application of
mine and therefore, it is violative of the rights
guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India.
That the learned Magistrate failed to consider the
averments made in the complaint filed by the
Respondent does not disclose the offences alleged in
the complaint. The averments in the complaint is that
the Petitioner established the Stone Crusher Unit and
the same is already locked and there is a stock of
5700 MTs of finished products. Except making the
said claim, there is no averments in the complaint
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
that the Petitioner has conducted the crushing
operations. The allegations in the complaint that the
Petitioner has conducted crushing operations and
violated Section 16(1) of Karnataka Regulation of
Stone Crushers Act. The learned Magistrate has not
taken cognizance of the complaint under Section 3(1)
of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Learned
Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint for the
offences punishable under Sec-21(1) of the MMDR Act
is completely without jurisdiction and suffers from
want of application of mind.
That the learned Magistrate failed to consider that
allegations made in the complaint do not constitute
an offence either under Section 4(1) of 4(1-A) of the
MMDR Act so as to prosecute the Petitioner under
Section 21 of the MMDR Act. The photographs
produced clearly shows that the schedule Property is
the land wherein the Petitioner has applied for grant
of licence in Form-C and the Petitioner not conducted
any crushing operations in the schedule properties as
there is no deposit of building stone to prosecute the
Petitioner under Sec-21(1) of the MMDR Act for the
alleged violation of 4(1) and 4(1-A) of the MMDR Act.
Section 4(1) and 4(1-A) of the MMDR Act will get
attracted only when the Petitioner conducted the
quarrying operations or transported the building
stones without obtaining a lease or a licence. The
stock of 5700 MTs as claimed by the Respondent is
not available in the ground and the said allegations
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
are not substantiated by producing any document in
support of the same before the Learned Magistrate to
take cognizance of the said complaint.
That the learned Magistrate failed to consider the
provisions of Section 21 of the MMDR Act, is not
attracted as there is no allegations whatsoever
alleging that the Petitioner has conducted the
quarrying operations and transported the finished
products in as much as the photographs produced
before the Learned Magistrate clearly shows that the
Petitioner has placed the machineries in the portion of
the Schedule Property that by itself is not an offence
punishable under Sec-21(1) of the MMDR Act. If there
is an allegation of conduct of quarrying operations,
there is no iota of evidence produced to show that the
Petitioner has conducted the crushing operations in
the Schedule Properties. There is no building stones
available in the schedule property to conduct the
quarrying operations and therefore, the allegations of
violation of Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, on the
face of it, is false and on the basis of false and
baseless allegations and therefore, the order of the
learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the said
complaint is illegal and erroneous in law., the
complaint is filed.
That the learned Magistrate failed to consider Rule
42(1) of the KKMC Rules is applicable only when
there is an illegal transportation of building stones
without obtaining the requisite permits. Admittedly,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
even according to the complaint, the Petitioner has
not transported the building stones except claiming
that there is a stock of 5700 MTs and there is no
allegation whatsoever and therefore, the entire basis
of filing the complaint is only on the basis of
conjectures and without any basis whatsoever.
Therefore, the impugned order of the learned
Magistrate suffers from want of application of mind
and as such, the same is required to be quashed.
That the Respondent failed to consider that the
provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act has absolutely
no application to take cognizance of the complaint.
Section 3(1) of the Act is applicable only when the
Petitioner conducts the crushing operations without
obtaining the license from the provisions of the
Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act.
Admittedly, even according to the averments in the
complaint, the stone crusher unit is not running and
no crushing operations are being carried on in the
schedule property to allege the violation of Sec-3(1)
of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act.
Section 3(1) of the Act is applicable only when there
is an illegal crushing operation being carried-out
without obtaining the license. The purchase of
equipments and keeping the equipment's in the
schedule property per se is not an offence under
Section 3(1) of the Act to prosecute the Petitioner
under Sec-16 of the Karnataka Requlation of Stone
Crushers Act. Therefore, the learned Magistrate
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
taking cognizance of the complaint for the offences
punishable under Section 3(1) of the Act is
completely illegal and without the authority of law.
That the learned Magistrate failed to consider the fact
that the complaint can be filed by only an officer
authorised by the State Government under Section
17 of the Act. Till today, the Government has not
issued any notification declaring the `Geologist’ as
the competent authority under Section 17 of the Act
to file a complaint against the Petitioner. The
Notification produced by the Respondent is under the
provisions of the KMMC Rules. The State Government
for the reasons best known to it, has not issued any
Notification under Section 17 of the Act authorising
the Geologist to file a complaint and therefore taking
cognizance of the complaint for the alleged violation
of Section3(1) of the Act is totally erroneous and
without jurisdiction and ultra vires of the powers
conferred on the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the
order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of
the complaint without producing the Notification
issued under Section-17 of the Act is without
jurisdiction. When the statute prescribes the manner
of taking the cognizance and the failure to follow such
procedure is violative of right guaranteed to the
petitioner under Article-21 of the Constitution of
India.
That the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the
learned Magistrate has not taken cognisance of the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
complaint for the offences punishable under Section 16(1)
of the Act. Section 3(1) of the Act is not a punishing
section. Referring the matter of the learned Principal
District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, is completely without
jurisdiction and without the authority of law. The committal
of the proceedings of Section 31B of the MMDR Act can be
done only of the offences under the MMDR Act. The
offences under Sec-16(1) of the Karnataka Regulation of
Stone Crushers Act is triable by the Learned Magistrate and
therefore committing the proceedings of the CC 1238 of
2021 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law.
That the learned Magistrate failed to consider the offences
punishable under Section 16(1) of the Act is triable by the
learned Magistrate. The offences under the provisions of the
MMDR Act are triable by Sessions Judge. Therefore,
referring the complaint for the offences punishable under
Section 16(1) of the Act is completely without jurisdiction
and without the authority of law.
That the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the
complaint under the provisions of the MMDR Act and
the KMMC Rules and the violation of the provisions of
the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act,
cannot be a single complaint. The offences under the
MMDR Act and the KMMC Rules are independent and
distinct. The offences under the provisions of the
Karnataka Regulations of Stone Crushers Act, are
separate and independent and therefore, the filing of
a complaint combining the offences both under the
MMDR Act and the KMMC Rules is violative of rights
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.”
Viewed from any angle, the impugned order of the
learned Magistrate and continuances of criminal
proceedings against the Petitioner amounts to abuse
of the process of the court and therefore, it is just
and necessary to quash the entire criminal
proceedings initiated against the Petitioner.”
6. Sri. Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya, learned
counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the
petition would contend that no offence whatsoever has taken
place as is contemplated under Section 21(1) of the MM(D&R)
Act and therefore, very registration of the case itself is abuse of
process of law.
7. Per contra, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court
Government Pleader would support the registration of the case
as prima facie materials are found by Inspecting Authority
when they visited the place of incident that crusher activity has
already taken place even before the licence could be granted.
Therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Having heard the arguments of both side this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
9. On such perusal of the material on record, the
inspecting authority noted the crusher activity being carried out
in the land bearing Sy.Nos.164/1, 164/2, 164/3 of Jakkanahalli
village. Later on, on enquiry with the concerned Government
Department, it is noticed that the present petitioner has applied
for the license; but even before the licence could be granted
from the competent authority, crusher activity has taken place
in the place.
10. Further, details with regard to the transportation of
the stones has been sought for and based on the same, the
estimation of the loss that has occurred to the Government is
also mentioned in the complaint.
11. These matters are disputed questions which need to
be considered by the Trial Magistrate in the trial in accordance
with law.
12. Expressing any opinion at this stage would
definitely hamper the rights of the parties.
13. Accordingly, having regard to the scope of writ
jurisdiction following:
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57795
WP No. 28733 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010664852023
ORDER
dismissed
(i) Petition is .
(ii) All the contentions kept open to be urged in
the trial in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
MR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
CT:VRR