Siddaling vs The State

Rathnakala, J.—This petition is filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Yadgir, in C.C. No. 238/2012.

The fact is, ''petitioners are charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/s 447 of IPC and 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The allegation against them is that, they trespassed the Government land bearing Sy. No. 184 and were found carrying on illegal mining near Karibetta in Kanekal village on Yadgir-Raichur road.

Sri. Baburao Mangane, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, first petitioner is the Director of M/s. Someshwar Stone Crushing Company. He had licence to carry on the mining in the said land, by the Department of Mining and Geology, w.e.f. 5.1.2005 for a period of five years, in Sy. No. 184/government land to an extent of 3 acres. The said licence was registered in No. 945/2005-06 and a map showing the location of the mining area of 3 acres in the said survey number is also issued. Before expiry of the above lease period, which was to expire on 4.1.2010, the said Company applied for renewal of the licence and the required fee was also paid, but the said application was rejected on technical reason. The Company preferred a revision challenging the said order of rejection before the Joint Director, North Region, Bellary. Vide direction given by the Joint Director of the Department of Mines and Geology, Yadgir, the petitioners were informed that the licence is deemed to have continued. The revision petition was allowed vide order dated 4.12.2012 along with connected cases and the lease period was extended for further five years. The Company has paid the penalty amount and also arrears to the Department. Though the Deputy Commissioner, Yadgir passed an order on 1.3.2011 cancelling the licence/lease and crush machine permission, subsequently he withdrew the order and permitted the quarry and crusher owners to carry out the quarry. In the above facts and circumstances, no case as alleged in the charge sheet is made out. The competent authority to file the complaint u/s 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is an authorised officer of the Central Government or the State Government. The Tahsildar had no such authority to lodge the complaint with the Police. The procedure contemplates that the complaint would not lie to the Police but to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In that view of the matter, the cognizance taken in this case for the offence punishable u/s 447 of IPC and 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is mere an abuse of process of law and moreover the Company is not arrayed as an accused. The petitioners since have already paid the penalty, no proceedings shall be allowed to be continued in the criminal court. Therefore, he submits that the entire proceedings 13 vitiated and prays to quash the proceedings.

As against this, Sri. S.S. Aspalli, learned Government Pleader for the State submits that, since the petitioners were found running a quarry in the land, which was not allotted to them, a case u/s 447 of the IPC and Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is made out against them and the Tahsildar being the responsible officer of the State, is the competent person to lodge complaint with the Police.

Learned Government Pleader further submits that, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, insofar as it relates to the offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, has nothing to do with the allegation of the offence u/s 447 of IPC and 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The contention raised by the petitioners is their defence and the said defence needs to be tested during the trial.

In the light of the fact that the case before the Magistrate is at the stage to hear on the charges, I am of the considered view that the petitioners shall exhaust their remedy before the trial court and if necessary, approach this Court under proper forum. Hence, giving liberty to the petitioners to raise all the above contentions before the Magistrate Court, this petition is disposed of.

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A. No. 1/2014 filed for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is dismissed.