Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Explosives And MMDR Cases Against Man Accused Of Running An Unlicensed Quarry

Police received information about quarrying allegedly being carried out without a licence and, on 22 March 2019, raided the site, seized vehicles and other articles, and prepared a mahazar before registering Crime No. 48/2019.

The FIR invoked provisions of the Explosives Act, the Explosive Substances Act, the Explosives Rules and Sections 379 read with 34 of the IPC.

Shetty sought to quash the FIR and mahazar, principally arguing that the seizure mahazar preceded registration of the case.

In the connected petition, he sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 2280/2019, arising from a private complaint under the MMDR Act and Rule 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, contending that the material did not establish his involvement and that cognizance was improperly taken.

The Court considered Section 154 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the inherent power to quash is limited to preventing abuse of process or miscarriage of justice, and that the investigation should ordinarily proceed where the complaint discloses alleged offences.

It referred to Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, concerning the duty to register an FIR upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, and to Dinesh Bai Chandu Bai Patel v. State of Gujarat, for the principle that, when considering quashing an FIR, the court examines the complaint’s contents and should not conduct a merits assessment of the evidence.

For the connected complaint, the Court applied Section 22 of the MMDR Act, under which cognizance of offences under that Act may be taken only on a complaint by an authorised person; it also considered Rule 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

The Court further considered Section 202 CrPC in addressing the challenge to the absence of a preliminary inquiry.

The Court rejected the challenge to the FIR because, in its view, the police initially had information about quarrying but had not yet confirmed a cognizable offence; the raid revealed the alleged activity and the articles at the site, after which the police prepared the mahazar and registered the case.

It therefore found no basis to quash the FIR or mahazar at the investigation stage, and held that questions about the petitioner’s involvement or the evidentiary value of the seized material were for investigation and trial.

As to the connected matter, the Court held that the authorised official had filed a private complaint to satisfy Section 22 of the MMDR Act, and that the Magistrate had considered the complaint, supporting statements and documents before taking cognizance.

It treated the petitioner’s denial of involvement as a matter for trial and rejected the Section 202 objection, noting that the alleged incident occurred within the court’s territorial jurisdiction and that the complaint relied on material collected during the police investigation.

It declined to quash either the FIR and mahazar in Crime No. 48/2019 or the proceedings and cognizance in C.C. No. 2280/2019.