- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3629 CRL.P No. 104271 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104271 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. P. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. MARAPPA AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. H.NO.899, WARD NO.33, MYSAKERE, HOSAPETE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY MALLAYYA P. S/O. TUMAKOORLAHALLI PALAYYA, AGE. 42 YEAR, OCC. GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINIES AND GEOLOGY, HOSAPET, TQ. HOSAPET, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR -587201, THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CC NO.450/2022 ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.33/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JUDGE, HAGARBOMMANAHALLI, FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3(1), 42(1) AND 44 KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS AND CONCESSION RULES, 1994 AND SECTION 4(1) (1A) AND 21 OF MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.25 18:00:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3629 CRL.P No. 104271 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 42(1), and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals and Concession Rules, 1994, and Sections 4(1) (1A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is before this Court. 2. The respondent-State filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), stating that the petitioner is the leaseholder of a minor mining area and is permitted to mine sand from Survey No. 414, measuring 17.29 acres. On inspection, it was found that the border pillars of the leased property had been altered, and it appeared that the petitioner had extracted sand from land beyond the leased area. 3. The respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 25.05.2022. In his reply, the petitioner stated that he did not change the border pillars; rather, unknown persons had altered them and conducted illegal mining activities by extracting sand from the property during the evening and night hours, without his consent. The petitioner had already informed the police of this fact. Upon receiving his reply, the respondent issued an endorsement stating that it was the petitioner’s duty to prevent any illegal mining. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alteration of the border pillars was carried out by unknown persons, as evidenced by the CCTV footage produced along with his reply and provided to the police. Therefore, without conducting an inquiry, the respondent issued an endorsement holding the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3629 CRL.P No. 104271 of 2022 petitioner, who has been granted the mining lease, responsible for protecting the land. 5. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was granted a mining lease in Survey No.414 and was obligated to protect the area beyond the leased boundary. The petitioner, having allegedly extracted sand from beyond the leased area, has committed the offence. He argued that the veracity of the allegation should be examined at trial and not at this stage, and he sought the dismissal of the petition. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has been granted a mining lease in Survey No.414, measuring 17.29 acres. The allegation is that, by shifting the border pillars, sand was extracted from land beyond the leased area. However, merely because the border pillars were shifted, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner extracted sand from beyond the leased area, particularly given that the petitioner provided a suitable reply and filed a complaint with the police stating that unknown persons were responsible for the unauthorized extraction. 8. The petitioner has also annexed CCTV footage to establish that unknown persons, using bullock carts, were extracting sand from the land beyond the leased area. However, neither the police nor the respondent has conducted any investigation into the complaint filed by the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3629 CRL.P No. 104271 of 2022 9. The respondent conducted a spot panchnama beyond the leased area to indicate that sand was extracted illegally. However, the panchnama was drawn without issuing notice to the petitioner; therefore, it cannot be considered binding on him. 10. Although the respondent alleges that sand was extracted illegally from beyond the leased area, there is no evidence to substantiate this claim, except for a survey conducted without issuing notice to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings in C.C. No.450/2022, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Judge, Hagaribommanahalli, insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87