- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2962 OF 2017 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: M/S. JYOTI BROTHERS (A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM) HAVING ITS REGD.OFFICE AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS, AHUJA CHAMBERS, NO.401, 4TH FLOOR, MADHAVNAGAR, KUMARAKRUPA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER/ AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SH. B.ANAND, S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI RANGE, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 2. SH. N.R. ANIL KUMAR DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KIBBANAHALLI DIVISION, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 JANEERU BEAT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI DIVISION, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572125 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE INVESTIGATION IN FOC.NO.12/2016-17 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLIANT DATED 12.05.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 2(7)(b)(iv), 24, 24(a), 24(g), 24(gg), 62, 64A, 73(d), 81, 82B, 109 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING THEREON AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER COMPANY/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged registration of FOC No.12/2016-17 by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 2(7)(b)(iv), 24, 24(a), 24(g), 24(gg), 62, 64(A), 73(d), 81, 82B and 109 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 as well as the order dated 16.05.2016 passed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli permitting the investigation of the aforesaid offences. 2. (i) The respondent No.1 alleged that the petitioner had encroached upon 0.37 hectares of forest land for the purpose of mining and had destroyed forest cover over an extent of 0.52 hectares, and had further encroached upon 0.21 hectares for mining activities and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Since the offences alleged against the petitioner were non-cognizable, a requisition was made by the Range Forest Officer vide letter dated 16.05.2016 before the Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the same. The Magistrate, on the basis of said written request, "permitted" investigation into the offences. In view of the above, the petitioner is before this Court challenging FOC No.12/2016-17. (ii) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of an order dated 08.02.2023 had quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for non-compliance of Section 155(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The said order was challenged by respondent No.1-State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) No.16567/2023, wherein, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 petitioner as well as the respondent No.1-State made a joint submission to set aside the order passed by the Co-ordinate bench and to remit the case to this Court for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was allowed in terms of an order dated 10.09.2025 and the case was remitted to this Court for reconsideration. 3. (i) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that W.P.(Civil) No.562/2009 was filed by Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and others against State of Karnataka and others before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of the order dated 26.08.2011 passed on I.A.No.22 at para No.(iii) held that: "By order dated 06.05.2011, we had directed the Joint Team to carry out survey and demarcation of 99 mining leases in District Bellary. We direct that the said order shall also stand extended to the mining leases in Districts Tumkur and Chitradurga and for the remaining mines in District Bellary'. Accordingly, a joint team or the Central Empowered Committee submitted its report, in terms of which, the mining lease granted to the petitioner was inspected on 10.11.2011 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 and the particulars of the leased area and the extent of encroachment, as determined in the total station survey were identified. Based on the said report, the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(C) No.562/2009 in terms of the order dated 18.04.2013, accepted the recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee and held as follows: "39. We make it clear that we have not understood the above statement as an admission on the part of the Federation and it is on a consideration of the totality of the facts placed before us that we accept the findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by the orders of this Court and the boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis. We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint team will henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with regard to boundaries of the leases involved in the present proceeding shall stand adjudicated by means of present order and no such question would be open for re-examination by any body or authority." (ii) It also held that the Central Empowered Committee had categorised the mining lease granted to the petitioner in 'B' - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 category and in so far as 'B' category mines are concerned, the petitioner was liable to pay towards reclamation and rehabilitation at 15% of the sale proceeds, in terms of the order dated 28.09.2012. (iii) Learned senior counsel further submits that from the records placed before this Court, a demand was made for a sum of Rs.6,59,14,272/- towards 15% of the sale proceeds, estimated reclamation and rehabilitation expenditure, compensation in respect of the mining pit over an area measuring 0.37 hectares, compensation towards dumps over an extent of 0.52 hectares, compensation for other categories over an extent of 0.21 hectares and commission payable. He further contends that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.6,59,14,272/- and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, extracted above, all disputes stand concluded and the impugned criminal proceedings does not survive for consideration. (iv) Learned senior counsel further submits that this submission is in addition to the contention that the Magistrate without application of mind, had cursorily "permitted" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 investigation into the offences. He therefore submits that the impugned prosecution of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that apart from the amounts demanded and collected from the petitioner, there are certain lapses on the part of the petitioner in carrying on mining activities without obtaining forest clearance, and that the State has already issued notices in that regard. He submits that the petitioner has not paid all amounts payable to the State Government and hence, the prosecution cannot be quashed. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. 6. A perusal of FOC No.12/2016-17 shows that the allegation against the petitioner was that it had encroached into 1.10 hectares of land belonging to the forest department, where it had dumped waste, and thereby damaged the ecology in the forest area. The Hon'ble Apex Court which had taken cognizance of issues relating to various mining leases in various - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 districts in Karnataka, had directed inspection of mining leases in Tumakuru and Chitraduraga districts. In the instant case, the mining lease of the petitioner is situated in Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumakuru district. Pursuant to inspection by the Central Empowered Committee, it was found that the petitioner had encroached upon forest land, dumped waste in the forest area, and thereby caused ecological damage over an extent of 1.10 hectares. The Hon'ble Apex Court which had taken cognizance of similar acts committed by leaseholders, formulated a scheme, in terms of which, such leaseholders would be liable to make payment towards compensatory afforestation and towards reclamation and rehabilitation plan prepared by Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) and approved by the Central Empowered Committee. It also held that all proceedings pending before any Court with regard to the boundaries of the leases involved in the said proceedings, shall stand adjudicated in terms of the order dated 18.04.2013 and that such question shall not be reopened for re-examination by any authority. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 7. (i) It is now submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in respect of those lease holders who were categorised in 'B' category, the Central Empowered Committee took over the mining leases, undertook appropriate measurements of the ore extracted and thereafter defrayed the expenses towards compensatory afforestation, reclamation and rehabilitation etc., and released the remaining amount. Therefore, it is evident that the encroachment by the petitioner into forest land was taken note of by the Hon'ble Apex Court which formulated a mechanism for compounding such violations by imposing compensatory costs and charges towards reclamation and rehabilitation. (ii) It is not in dispute that the compensatory cost, and reclamation and rehabilitation expenses were recovered from the value of the ore quarried from the leased premises. In that view of the matter, the impugned prosecution of the petitioner does not survive for consideration, as the alleged violations stood regularized in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is unwarranted. In addition, as rightly - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21156 CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the Magistrate could not have cursorily "permitted" investigation into the offences, but he must have applied his mind before passing an order permitting such investigation. 8. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned prosecution of the petitioner is set aside and FOC No. 12/2016-2017 is quashed. However, if the petitioner is bound in law to make any other payment to the State Government, liberty is reserved to the State Government to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 9. It is needless to mention that if the State Government intends to take any action, the same shall be done only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1