- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12857 CRL.P No. 103836 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103836 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRINIVAS STONE KRASHAR PROP. SRINIVAS REDDY, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.432, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, KURUBAR ONI, NEAR OLD MUNCIPAL, AMARAVATHI, HOSPETE-583 201. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGANAGOUDA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KOPPAL TOWN, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 234, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580 011. 2. SRI. SYED FAZIL, SENIOR GEOLOGIST OFFICE, MINE AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL-583 231. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.3538/2022 (PCR NO.157/2020) PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOPPAL FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 9(2)(VI), 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1) AND 17(2), 3C(3) AND 3C(5) OF THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS ACT, 2011, AND RULES 3-C(1), 3-C(2), 3-C(3), AND 3- C(5) OF THE KARNATAKA STONE CRUSHER REGULATION RULES, 2012, AND SECTIONS 16(1) AND 17(1) OF KARNATAKA REGULATION OF STONE CRUSHERS ACT, 2011, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12857 CRL.P No. 103836 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused No.6 is before this Court under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding in C.C.No.3538 of 2022 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal arising out of PCR No.157 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 9(2)(vi), 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1) & 17(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and Rules 3-C(1), 3-C(2), 3-C(3) and 3-C(5) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned criminal proceedings has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100425 of 2025 insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1, 5 and 11 are concerned. Allegations in the private complaint as against all accused are similar. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12857 CRL.P No. 103836 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, however does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The material on record would go to show that in the private complaint which is filed by the Senior Geologist attached to Mines and Geology Department, Koppal District, allegations made against all the 14 accused are similar. Petitioner Nos.1, 5 and 7 had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.100425 of 2025, challenging the impugned criminal proceedings and the said petition was allowed on 12.02.2025. In paragraph Nos.7 to 13 of the said order, it is observed as follows: “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 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, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12857 CRL.P No. 103836 of 2025 the competent authority must pass an appropriate order. Thereafter, the licensing authority may pass an order 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, a 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 in Shalini K. v. Inspector of Legal Metrology & Another (W.P. No.51116/2017 (GM-RES) and connected cases), it was 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 State, without passing an order, directly registers a complaint and sets criminal law into motion, such action would be legally unsustainable. 13. In the present case, the licensing authority, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without passing an order, has directly registered a criminal case to prosecute them. Consequently, the filing of the complaint and the subsequent taking of cognizance stand vitiated for non- compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2011 and the Rules of 2012.” 6. The reasoning assigned by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100425 of 2025 is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12857 CRL.P No. 103836 of 2025 ii. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.3538 of 2022 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal arising out of PCR No.157 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 9(2)(vi), 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1) & 17(2) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and Rules 3-C(1), 3-C(2), 3-C(3) and 3-C(5) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 is quashed against the petitioner. iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to initiate such proceedings in accordance with law after passing an order by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as enumerated in sub Rule 5 of Rule 3-C of Rules of 2012. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 53