- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:438 CRL.P No. 102965 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102965 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI VENKATESH AND MARUTI DEVASTHAN COMMITTEE, LOKUR, R/O. LOKUR, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591234. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHRI. NIVRUTHI S/O. RAMU BHAGAT, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND CHAIRMAN OF SAID TRUST. 2. SHRI. SADASHIV S/O. DATTU MANE, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF SHRI VENKATESH AND MARUTI DEVASTHAN COMMITTEE, LOKUR, R/O. LOKUR, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591234. 3. SHRI. JAISINGH S/O. SHIVAJI BHAGAT, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. SECRETARY OF SAID TRUST AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. LOKUR, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591234. 4. SHRI. SHIVAJI S/O. BALU MAMADAPURE, AGE. 83 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. LOKUR, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591234. 5. SHRI. SUDHAKAR S/O. VITHAL BHAGAT, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. LOKUR, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591234. 6. SHRI. ASHOK S/O. BALAVANT LOKUR, AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:438 CRL.P No. 102965 of 2024 MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER OF SHRI VENKATESH AND MARUTI DEVASTHAN COMMITTEE, LOKUR, R/O. LOKUR, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591234. 7. SHRI. GOPAL S/O. RAOSAHEB JAGADALE, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER OF SHRI VENKATESH AND MARUTI DEVASTHAN COMMITTEE, LOKUR, R/O. LOKUR, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591234. 8. SHRI. SAMBHAJI S/O. TUKARAM MANE, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER OF SHRI VENKATESH AND MARUTI DEVASTHAN COMMITTEE, LOKUR, R/O. LOKUR, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591234. 9. SHRI. BALASAHEB S/O. BAPU GAIKWAD, AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER OF SHRI VENKATESH AND MARUTI DEVASTHAN COMMITTEE, LOKUR, R/O. LOKUR, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591234. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRANAV S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY SHRI. SUJEET KULKARNI, AGE. 33 YEARS, GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KUMARSWAMY, BADAWANI, BELAGAVI-590010. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ADDL. S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:438 CRL.P No. 102965 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6 AND 8 TO 10 IN SPECIAL CASE NO.10001/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE XI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT ATHANI ON THE BASIS OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE GEOLOGIST OFFICER PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.75/2023, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 4(1), 4(1A) R/W SECTION 21 OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED AS MMRD IN SHORT) AND 3(1) AND 42(1) R/W 44(1) OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES 1994 HEREIN AFTER REFERRED AS KMMCR IN SHORT) AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Pranav Sukhadeo Katageri and learned High Court Government Pleader-Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, for the parties. 2. The petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’ for short), with the following prayer: “Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is most humbly by the Petitioners herein to this Hon'ble Court, be pleased to Allow this Criminal Petition by quashing the entire proceedings against the Petitioners herein who are arrayed as Accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 in Special Case. No. 10001/2024 pending before the learned XI Addl. District - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:438 CRL.P No. 102965 of 2024 and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at Athani on the basis of Private Complaint filed by the Geologist officer Private Complaint No. 75/2023, for the Offences Punishable U/s. 4(1), 4(1A) R/w Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Hereinafter referred as 'MMRD' in short) and 3(1) and 42(1) R/w 44(1) of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1994 Hereinafter referred as 'KMMCR' in short), as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A private complaint under Section 200 the Cr.P.C. came to be filed by the Officer, who is the Geologist in the Mines and Mineral Department, Kumarswami Extension Belagavi, namely, Sujith Kulkarni, against the petitioners herein. 4. The gist of the averments in the complaint would reveal that the complainant is authorised to file the complaint under the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act, as the complainant is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is his contention that in Lokur village of Kagwad Taluk, Belagavi District, Dharmaraja Shivalinga Gadage and others, on behalf of the entire villagers, approached him and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:438 CRL.P No. 102965 of 2024 intimated to him that the petitioners were indulging in illegal mining of the land belonging to Sri.Venkatesha and Sri.Maruthi Temple Trust, Lokur, Kagwad Taluk. 6. It is also contended that there is no licence obtained for carrying out mining activities in the said land and that the trustees of the temple are illegally carrying on such mining activities, resulting in great loss to the temple property. Therefore, they approached the Tahasildar and lodged a complaint, which was in turn referred to the complainant. 7. Based on the complaint, the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein and passed an order registering the case in Special Case No.5001 of 2024 and proceeded with the case. Since the petitioners failed to appear in pursuance of the summons served upon them, the learned trial Judge issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court and obtained an order of stay. 8. It is the complaint of the petitioners that, despite grant of stay, non-bailable warrants are being issued against them and therefore, they have sought for quashing the entire proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:438 CRL.P No. 102965 of 2024 9. Counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that the approach of the learned trial Judge in registering the case based on a private complaint and proceeding with the case on hand is incorrect and opposed to the established procedure under the Cr.P.C. as well as the Mines and Minerals Act and therefore, sought for quashing of the pending proceedings. 10. He also pressed into service the order passed in Writ Petition No.76031 of 2013 connected with Writ Petition No.81057 of 2013, wherein a compromise was entered into and after recording the satisfaction, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court permitted the compromise to be taken on record and allowed the Writ Petitions accordingly. The Writ Appeals filed against the said order came to be dismissed. Therefore, it is contended that the trustees of the temple, being the owners of the property cannot be penalised for the alleged offences and sought for quashing the pending proceedings. 11. Per contra, Smt.Keertilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused persons in respect of the private complaint filed by the Geologist. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:438 CRL.P No. 102965 of 2024 12. She would further contended that, even assuming that the land belongs to the temple committee by virtue of the compromise, for mining in the said land, necessary license is not obtained by the petitioners and therefore, the mining activity, which was reported by the villagers to the Tahsildar and to the Geologist is per se illegal mining and therefore, prima facie material placed on record would be sufficient enough to taking cognizance and proceeding with the case which has been done by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order, which requires no interference by exercising the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus, sought for dismissal of the petition. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, prima facie, from the order of the Writ Petitions referred to supra, it appears that property belongs to the Sri.Venkatesh and Sri.Maruti, temple trust. 15. However, even in respect of property belonging to a temple or trust, if any person intends to carry out mining activities they have to approach the Mining Department and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:438 CRL.P No. 102965 of 2024 obtain the necessary licence to carry out the mining in the said land. 16. In the case on hand, the villagers of the Lokur have reported to the Tahasildar that illegal mining was carried out on in the temple property and temple property, which is to be preserved for the general public. 17. The Tahsildar in turn after conducting the necessary spot inspection intimated the second respondent to take necessary action and based on the information collected and after collecting the necessary materials on record and also citing the villagers as the witnesses, a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. came to be filed by the second respondent before the Special Judge for violation of the Provisions of Mines and Minerals Act. 18. The learned Special Judge, upon perusal of the materials placed on record, took cognizance of the offences and proceeded with the case. 19. Since it is a complaint case, necessary formalities are to be carried out by the learned trial Magistrate after the accused petitioners appear before the Court and thereafter frame charges if the materials available on record make out an offence. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:438 CRL.P No. 102965 of 2024 20. At the most, grounds urged in the petition or in the nature of defence, have to be put to the complainant and witnesses when the evidence is recorded before framing the charge. Reserving such liberty for the petitioners, this Court does not find any good grounds to quash the pending proceedings. 21. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 19