- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9549 CRL.P No. 101205 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101205 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANAMMA W/O GANAPATI NAYAK, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHIRGUNJI, PO: AGASUR, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 2. SHRI HARSHAN S/O GANAPATI NAYAK, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIRGUNJI, PO: AGASUR, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 3. SHRI DARSHAN S/O GANAPATI NAYAK, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER IN ARMY, R/O: SHIRGUNJI, PO: AGASUR, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. 993 AAD WKSP, UDHAMPUR, STATE: JAMMU KASHMIR. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HAREESH S. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580 008, THROUGH ANKOLA P.S. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KARWAR, UTTAR KANANDA-581 301. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9549 CRL.P No. 101205 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.163/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, ANKOLA REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4(1), 4(1A) OF MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT 1967 AND RULE 3(1), 42(1) OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES 1994, SECTION 21 OF MMRD ACT, 1957 AND RULE 44 OF KMMCR 1994 (AMENDMENT RULES 2017) AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 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) Petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.03.2020 and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.163/2020 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Ankola, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 3(1) and 42(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Rule 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9549 CRL.P No. 101205 of 2020 3. Based on the private complaint filed as provided under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) by the Geologist, attached to the Office of the Deputy Director of the Mines and Geology Department, Belagavi, proceedings was initiated against the petitioners herein and the learned Magistrate, vide the order impugned dated 23.03.2020, had taken cognizance of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act read with Section 42(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having relied upon Section 22 and Section 30B of the MMDR Act, 1957, submits that the Court of Magistrate had no power to entertain the complaint and it is only the Special Court constituted under Section 30B of the MMDR Act can entertain a private complaint filed under the MMDR Act. He accordingly prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition submits that the Court of Magistrate is only a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9549 CRL.P No. 101205 of 2020 committal court for the purpose of committing a complaint to the Court of Special Judge since the MMDR Act does not provide power to the Court of Special Judge to take cognizance of the offences under the Act, without the complaint being committed by the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. In support of her argument, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka1. 6. Section 22 and Section 30B of the MMDR Act reads as follows: 22. Cognizance of offences.―No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. 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-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4, constitute, by notification, as many Special 1 (2021) 19 SCC 62 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9549 CRL.P No. 101205 of 2020 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 concurrence 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 appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of such order.” 7. As rightly contended by learned HCGP, the provisions of the MMRD Act, which is a special enactment does not specifically provide for the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences punishable under the provisions of the Act, without the complaint being committed to the said Court of jurisdictional Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka having referred to the provisions of the MMDR Act, has held that even if the Special Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act, without there being a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9549 CRL.P No. 101205 of 2020 committal order by the Court of Magistrate, the same is only an illegality which can be cured. Section 193 of Cr.P.C., which provides for cognizance of offence by the Court of sessions states that no Court of sessions shall take cognizance of offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by the Magistrate under this Court. 8. Under the circumstances, since there is no provision under the MMDR Act for the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences punishable under the said Act, without the case being committed to it by the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in view of Section 193 of Cr.P.C., the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate is the committal Court and therefore, the complaint filed in the present case before the Magistrate is maintainable. However, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the alleged offences and on the other hand, on receipt of the complaint he was supposed to commit the case to the Special Court. Under the circumstances, the following: ORDER The criminal petition is partly allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9549 CRL.P No. 101205 of 2020 The entire proceedings in C.C.No.163/2020 dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Ankola, registered for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 3(1) and 42(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Rule 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 is quashed and the learned Magistrate is directed to commit the case to the Court of Special Judge as provided under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge shall thereafter proceed in the case in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39