- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2139 CRL.P No. 103450 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103450 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NATHAN R. CHOWGULE S/O. RAMESH CHOWGULE, AGE: 50 YEARS, NOMINATED OWNER, KARADIKOLLA IRON ORE MINE M/S. CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, CHOWGULE HOUSE, MORMUGAO HARBOUR, GOA, GOA STATE-403803. 2. SANJAY CHAKRABORTY S/O. LATE ROHINI KANTA CHAKRABORTY, AGE. 49 YEARS, AGENT KARADIKOLLA IRON ORE MINE, M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, CHOWGULE HOUSE, MORMUGAO HARBOUR, GOA, GOA STATE-403803. 3. P.R.VENKATESHWARA PRASAD AGE: 55 YEARS, S/O. P. CHINNAPPA MINES MANAGER, KARADIKOLLA IRONE ORE MINE, M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DIST., KARNATAKA STATE-583119. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , DHARWAD-580011. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.07 11:09:30 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2139 CRL.P No. 103450 of 2022 REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF MINES, (ALSO DESIGNATED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETY), BALLARI REGION, BALLARI, KARNATAKA STATE-583104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. AVINASH ANGADI, CGSA FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2021, IN CC NO.213/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SANDUR, BALLARI DISTRICT FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 73 AND 72C(1) (a) OF THE MINES ACT, 1952, AND SET ASIDE THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.213/2021 (PCR NO.39/2021), IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The present petition challenges the registration of a private complaint for offences punishable under Sections 73 and 72C(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952. 2. The respondents filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that at around 10:50 hours, Shri K. Shivakumara, the driver of tipper bearing Registration No. KA 35C 0711, parked the vehicle on a slightly inclined plane to load material from a wheel loader. Shri N. Karthika, the wheel loader operator, began loading the tipper. In the meantime, Shri K. Shivakumara got down from the cabin, leaving the tipper unmanned without informing anyone. While loading the last bucket, Shri N. Karthika noticed that the tipper suddenly started moving - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2139 CRL.P No. 103450 of 2022 forward. In an attempt to stop it, Shri K. Shivakumara tried to re- enter the vehicle from the driver’s side but slipped, fell to the ground, and was run over by the right-side rear wheel near the berm, located approximately 35 meters from the loading point. He sustained serious bodily injuries and succumbed to them after four hours at the hospital. 3. According to the complainant, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioners/accused in failing to appoint a Foreman and Manager as required under Regulations 37 and 39 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations, 1961”). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the report submitted by the competent authority itself acknowledges that a Foreman and Manager were duly appointed, in compliance with Regulations 37 and 39 of the Regulations, 1961. In the absence of any specific negligence on the part of the accused, cognizance of the alleged offences is legally impermissible. He further contended that the accident resulted from the deceased’s own negligence, as he attempted to board the unmanned tipper while it was in motion. Therefore, no liability can be attributed to the petitioners/accused. 5. In response, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 argued that the averments in the complaint clearly establish a prima facie case of contravention of Section 72C(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952. He submitted that the veracity of these allegations must be examined during trial and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2139 CRL.P No. 103450 of 2022 cannot be adjudicated in the present petition. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the petition. 6. Upon considering the arguments advanced by both parties, the following is noted: 7. Section 72C of the Mines Act, 1952, deals with special provisions for contraventions of law resulting in dangerous consequences. It provides that any person who contravenes the provisions of the Act, regulations, rules, bye-laws, or any order issued thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for up to two years if such contravention results in loss of life. 8. The respondents allege that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the mine owner, who allegedly failed to appoint a Foreman and Manager in accordance with Regulations 37 and 39 of the Regulations, 1961. 9. Section 73 of the Mines Act, 1952, deals with general provisions for disobedience of orders and prescribes that whoever contravenes any provision of the Act, regulations, rules, bye-laws, or orders, for which no specific penalty is provided, shall be punishable with imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. 10. Regulation 37 of the Regulations, 1961, pertains to the appointment and qualifications of senior officials in mines. 11. A perusal of the fatal accident report submitted by the Deputy Director of Mines Safety, Ballari Region, reveals that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2139 CRL.P No. 103450 of 2022 mine was managed by a First Class Mines Manager, assisted by two Second Class Assistant Managers, two Foramen, one Mine Mate, one Geologist, one Surveyor, one Mechanical Engineer, and 98 contractor workmen from various trades. The permissible production limit as fixed by the Standing Committee/Expert Committee on Environment (SC/ECE) was 5,00,000 tonnes. 12. The report further concludes that the death resulted from the negligence of the deceased himself, who attempted to board the unmanned tipper while it was in motion. There is no evidence to establish any failure on the part of the petitioners in appointing the necessary officials or ensuring compliance with safety regulations. 13. In the absence of essential elements necessary to constitute the alleged contraventions, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC NO.213/2021 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sandur, Ballari District, insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 is herby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48