T.N. HARISHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitions on merits at the time of hearing the matters for admission.

(2.) PERUSED the records. As both the above cases raise common question of law though the factual matrix are different, but the facts also raise common question of law. In CRL.P. No. 5415/2014 the police have registered a case against the petitioners on the allegation that on 22.8.2014 when the Maddur Police were on rounds, they received credible information that the driver of a lorry was shifting or excavating the minor mineral i.e., sand at the place near K. Hagalahalli on the river bed of Shimsha River. Immediately the Police have gone to the spot and seized the said lorry. However, the driver was successful in escaping from the spot. The police have registered a case in Crime No. 383/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 188, of IPC Rule 3 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rulers, and Sec. 4 and 21(1) of the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act (for short 'the MMRD Act') and started investigation.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contends that this Court had many occasions to deal with such matters and held that without a private complaint the police cannot investigate the matter directly since the offences are essentially under the MMRD Act. Looking to the above factual matrix of both the cases, the police have registered cases under the IPC as well as under the MMRD Act. On two other occasions this Court in Crl. P. No. 11116/2012 vide order dated 3.09.2012 and also in Crl. P. No. 4642/2014 vide order dated 25.08.2014 held that unless a complaint is filed under Section 22 of the MMRD Act the police have no jurisdiction to take up the investigation and file any report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance on the basis of the police report. For the purpose of understanding I have also gone through the provision of Section 22 of the MMRD Act which reads as follows: -