- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3155 CRL.P No. 100144 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100144 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ B.M. S/O. UMAPATI B R/AT. DAVALGIRI BADAVANE, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 2. HANUMAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA GORVAR R/AT. 184, HALAVARTI, KUNIKERI POST, KOPPAL-583 228. 3. BHEMAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA NADAGUDATTI R/AT. 184 HALAVARTI, KOPPAL-583 228. 4. RAMAPPA S/O. MAILAPPA NADUVALAMANI R/AT. HALAVARTI, KOPPAL-583 228. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ZANZA SHAILESH JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA H.V.VISHWANATH GEOLOGIST MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 04.06.2019 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.5 TO 8/PETITIONERS IN SPL.C. (MMDR) NO.26/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 4(1) AND (1A) OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT REGULATION) ACT 1957 AND U/S 21(1) AND 21(2) OF MMRD ACT. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:05 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3155 CRL.P No. 100144 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offenses punishable under Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the MMDR Act, is challenged in this petition. 2. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioners unauthorizedly transported building stones without the required permission and license as specified under the Act and Rules. It was further alleged that the license granted to the petitioners for stone crushing had expired. 3. The key issue is whether the learned Magistrate could take cognizance of the offense. This issue has already been examined by this Court in Crl.P No.100525/2017, wherein paragraphs 3 and 4 state as follows: "3. The provision under Section 30B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (‘the MMDR Act’, for short) confers special status on the Special Courts and the Governments have to establish Special Courts for the purpose of trying the offences under the MMRD Act. There is no doubt so far as the above aspect is concerned. Section 30B of the MMDR Act reads as under:- “30B.Constitution of Special Courts.- (1) The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences for contravention of the provisions of sub- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3155 CRL.P No. 100144 of 2025 section (1) or sub-section(1A) of section 4, constitute, by notification, as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification. (2) A Special Court shall consist of a Judge who shall be appointed by the State Government with the cocurrence of the High Court. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he is or has been a District and Sessions Judge. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court may prefer an - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15715 CRL.P No. 10780 of 2023 appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of such order.” 4. In view of the above said provision, in order to deal with the matters under the above said enactment, the Government has issued notification constituting Special Courts for the purpose of dealing with the offences under the MMRD Act. As per Section 30B of the MMDR Act, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of every district have been designated as the Special Judge. In view of Section 30B of the MMDR Act and the notification issued, as noted above, it is crystal clear that the Judicial Magistrates of First Class, have no right to entertain any complaint where the allegations fall under the MMDR Act or the Rules thereunder and with allied offences. The factual matrix of this case shows the Geologist- respondent No.3 ha filed a private complaint before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Ranebennur, against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/S 4(1), 4(1-A) and 21 of MMRD Act, 1957 Rules 3(1), 36, 42, 44(1) of KMMCR Rules, 1994 and under Rules 3-B and 3-C of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 read with Section 16(1) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Ranebennur, after receiving the complaint ha taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused vide orders dated 02.11.2016 by regitering a Criminal Case in C.C. No. 692/2016. The said registration of the case in C.C. No. 692/2016. The said registration of the cae taking of cognizance and issuing of process is without jurisdiction by the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:15715 CRL.P No. 10780 of 2023 Magistrate. In this background, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned JMFC could not have entertained the complaint, taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the said order requires to be quashed. The complaint averments discloses the specific allegations of petitioners having committed offences under Sections 4(1), 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, under Section 3(1), 36, 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, under Section 3(1), 6-A(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3155 CRL.P No. 100144 of 2025 Stone Crushers Act, 2011, and under Section 3B and 3C of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012." 4. In the cited decision it is ruled that the cognizance of the offence under the Act and the Rules can be taken only by a Special Court. 5. In light of the legal principles established by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate lacks authority. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.C.(MMRD) No.26/2021 pending on the file of the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Koppal is hereby quashed. iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent to file a complaint before the appropriate Court if permissible in law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 160