HARIPRASAD vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58844
CRL.P No. 10760 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010586582024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10760 OF 2024


BETWEEN:


HARIPRASAD
S/O RANGANATHA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT KA-50 A-4753
TIPPER LORRY DRIVER,
C.K.PURA KELAGOTE
CHITRADURGA TOWN
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
PIN 575 281.
…PETITIONER










(BY SMT.NANDINI B., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.NARAYANA SWAMY G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THALAKU POLICE STATION,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. LOKESH H.V.
S/O NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC.POLICE SUB INSPECTOR

Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58844
CRL.P No. 10760 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010586582024



THALAK POLICE STATION
CHITRADURGA TOWN
CHITRADURGA PIN 575 281.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAVEED S., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.113/2024 OF
THE THALAK POLICE ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
MOLAKALMURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION
379 OF IPC, IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER / ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.113/2024, arising out of Crime
No.200/2023 dated 30.09.2023, filed by the Thalak Police
Station, Chitradurga District, against the petitioner and another
for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC pending
on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2, the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Thalak Police Station, lodged a
complaint on 30.09.2023, alleging that he had received credible

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58844
CRL.P No. 10760 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010586582024



information regarding the petitioner transporting sand worth
Rs.24,800/- without a valid licence. Accordingly, respondent
No.2 secured the presence of panchas, proceeded to the spot
near the overbridge at Herenahalli Village, intercepted the
tipper lorry carrying sand and seized the same. Thereafter, a
case was registered in Crime No.200/2023 dated 30.09.2023
for the aforementioned offence. Subsequently, respondent
No.1-Police conducted the investigation and filed the charge
sheet against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences,
dropping accused No.2, the owner of the tipper lorry, from the
proceedings. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, took
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC,
since respondent No.1-Police had not invoked the provisions of
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 against this petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order
taking cognizance and the consequent proceedings before the
Magistrate, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58844
CRL.P No. 10760 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010586582024



4. Apart from raising several other contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the Mineral
Dispatch Permit issued by the Department of Mines and
Geology, submits that the petitioner was transporting sand
under a valid permit issued by the competent authority on
30.09.2023. Therefore, the petitioner has not committed any
illegality. She further contends that accused No.2, the owner of
the tipper lorry, has been dropped from the charge sheet.
According to her, in view of the valid permit authorising the
transportation of sand, the essential ingredients of the offence
punishable under Section 379 of IPC does not attracted.

Accordingly, she prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra , learned HCGP opposes the petition,
contending that the charge sheet has been filed against the
petitioner and the statements of CWs.2 and 3 prima facie
disclose that respondent No.2, acting on credible information,
intercepted the lorry and seized the sand. Therefore, a prima
facie case is made out against the petitioner. He further
contends that, although the Mineral Dispatch Permit was valid
on the date in question, it authorised transportation only

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58844
CRL.P No. 10760 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010586582024



between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., whereas respondent No.2
intercepted the lorry at 6:00 p.m. This, according to him,
indicates that the petitioner was transporting sand outside the
permitted hours. He also places reliance on the report in
support of his contentions. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the

petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission and perused the entire charge sheet materials.

7. As could be gathered from the charge sheet materials,
respondent No.1-Police, based on the credible information,
initially registered the FIR against the owner of the tipper lorry,
arrayed as accused No.2, and the petitioner, who was its
driver. It is the specific case of respondent No.1-Police that,
although a valid permit was issued to the petitioner on
30.09.2023 for transportation of sand between 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., the petitioner continued to transport sand beyond
the permitted hours. In response, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the petitioner had loaded the sand
and was transporting the same within the period authorised
under the permit. However, respondent No.1-Police intercepted

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58844
CRL.P No. 10760 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010586582024



the tipper lorry and, under the guise of following the procedure
for arrest, detained it for a considerable period. She further
contended that accused No.2, the owner of the tipper lorry, has
been dropped from the charge sheet and that the offences
under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957, have also not been invoked in the
charge sheet against this petitioner. In such circumstances, as
rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, even if
the allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet are taken at
their face value, the essential ingredients of the offence
punishable under Section 379 of the IPC does not made out
against the petitioner. Though the prosecution alleges that the
petitioner transported the sand beyond the permitted hours,
the mere fact that the tipper lorry was intercepted at a
particular time, followed by the registration of the FIR, does
not, by itself, establish that the petitioner committed theft
punishable under Section 379 of IPC. Therefore, the alleged
transportation beyond the permitted hours, in the absence of
material establishing the essential ingredients of theft, would
not, by itself, attract the said provision. As such, in my

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58844
CRL.P No. 10760 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010586582024



considered view continuation of proceedings against the
petitioner amount to abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
i. The criminal petition is .

ii. The proceedings against petitioner/accused
No.1 in C.C.No.113/2024, arising out of Crime
No.200/2023 dated 30.09.2023, filed by the
Thalak Police Station, Chitradurga District, for
the offences punishable under Section 379 of
IPC, pending on the file of Civil Judge and
JMFC, Molakalmuru are hereby quashed.

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE











GPG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7