- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3952 WP No. 101501 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 101501 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: RASHMI HITNAL AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR, M/S RASHMI STONE CRUSHER, R/O. POST. HITNAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583234. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, DIST. KOPPAL-583224, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KOPPAL TOWN, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583224. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ACRTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C. R/W 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO, ISSUER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 3305/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL FOR THE OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 9(2) VI, 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1) AND 17(2) OF KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS ACT, 2011, AND RULE 3-C(1), 3-C(2), 3-C(3) AND 3-C(5) OF THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS RULES 2012, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 IS CONCERNED -VIDE ANNEXURE-B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.28 12:30:01 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3952 WP No. 101501 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner challenges the cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Sections 9(2)(vi), 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1), 17(2), 3-C(3), and 3-C(5) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2011, as well as Sections 16(1) and 17(1) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. 2. The respondents filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), alleging that the petitioner was granted a license for stone crushing, and during the currency of the license, she stacked minerals and carried out stone crushing without paying royalty to the government. The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the complaint, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that stacking minerals without payment of royalty is a contravention under Rule 3-C of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2012’). Sub- rule (5) of Rule 3-C provides that the competent authority must be given an opportunity to take action before initiating penal proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, an alternative remedy of appeal is provided under Section 15 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (hereinafter - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3952 WP No. 101501 of 2025 referred to as ‘the Act of 2011’), against any order passed by the competent authority after hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, without following the prescribed procedure, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 4. In support of his argument, he relies on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.101794/2021. 5. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents contended that the petitioner, by stacking minerals without paying royalty to the government, has committed an offence under Rule 3-C of the Rules of 2012, which is punishable under Section 16 of the Act of 2011. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, after rightly considering the averments made in the complaint, has taken cognizance, which does not warrant interference. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 7. Rule 3-C of the Rules of 2012 states that no crusher licensee shall receive, store, or cause to store any minerals or processed minerals on its premises without a valid mineral dispatch permit issued in accordance with mineral concession rules. 8. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3-C further provides that if any mineral or its processed product is found on the premises of a crusher licensee without proper royalty payment, the competent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3952 WP No. 101501 of 2025 authority shall, after granting an opportunity of hearing, initiate penal action under the provisions of the Act. 9. Therefore, before initiating any penal action, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the crusher licensee. Upon considering the reply, if any, submitted by the licensee, the competent authority must pass an appropriate order. The licensing authority may, thereafter, pass an order either canceling the license, imposing a fine, or initiating criminal prosecution. 10. Section 15 of the Act of 2011 provides for an appeal against any order passed by the licensing authority, stating that such an appeal shall lie before the Regional Commissioner. 11. In similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101794/2021, while dealing with similar provisions under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, referred to Section 48 of the said Act, which provides for the compounding of offences, and Section 50, which provides for an appeal. 12. In reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Shalini K. Vs. Inspector of Legal Metrology & Another (W.P. No.51116/2017 (GM-RES) and connected cases), it has been held that under Section 50(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, an appeal is available to an offender against any decision taken based on a reply submitted for offences punishable under Sections 27 to 39 of the said Act. It was further held that where the respondent-state, without passing an order, directly registers a complaint, setting - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3952 WP No. 101501 of 2025 criminal law into motion, such an action would be legally unsustainable. 13. In the present case, the licensing authority, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without passing an order, has directly registered a criminal case to prosecute them. Consequently, the filing of the complaint, culminating in the taking of cognizance, stands vitiated for non- compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2011 and the Rules of 2012. 14. Under these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.3305/2022 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner-accused No.7 are hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate such proceedings in accordance with law, after passing an order by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein as enumerated in (5) of Rule 3-C of 2012. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55