SHYAMRAJ SINGH S/O LATE B S BALAJI SINGH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the FIR in Crime No. 31/2015 registered by the respondent-SIT for offences punishable under sections 379, 409, 420, 447, 468 and 471 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 21, 23 read with section 4(1) and 4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is sought to be quashed.

(2.) The main contention of the petitioner is that M/s. S.B.Minerals, a Partnership Firm initially was granted mining lease in M.L.No.1301 for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 17.01.1976 and the same was extended for a further period of 20 years w.e.f. 17.01.2006 under M.L.2550 and this lease and this lease area consists of 110 acres. On passing of time, the family members of M/s S.B.Minerals divided this lease area into A and B Block. 'A' Block is controlled by Smt.Rani Samyuktha and her relative Yerri Babu and 'B' Block was under the control of S.B.Jairaj Singh and Shri. Nanda Singh and whatever iron ore material produced under 'B' Block was traded through the firm M/s S.V.K. Minerals of Jaisinghpura, Hospet and for this firm M/s SVK Minerals two partners by name Shri Nanda Kumar Singh (Managing Partner) and this petitioner Shri.Shyamraj Singh, is another partner. It is further contended that M/s S.V.K. Minerals, Jaisinghpura, Hospet, which is only dealer of iron ore and this firm consists of Mr.Nandakumar Singh as Managing partner and the petitioner is only a nominal partner. Sri.Nandakumar Singh was in charge of day to day business affairs of M/s S.V.K. Minerals Firm. In this FIR, Investigation Officer without ascertaining the real and correct facts has named this petitioner Shri. Shyamraj Singh as one of the partners of M/s S.B.Minerals, partnership firm. Infact, this petitioner is not one of the partners of M/s S.B.Minerals. Therefore, without any basis and on misconception of facts, FIR is registered against the petitioner and hence the petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in Cr.No.31/2015 and the consequent investigation thereon.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General contending that the petitioner is a Partner in M/s.S.V.K. Minerals who have made an agreement to sell the extracted iron ore from M/s.S.B.Minerals M.L. No.2550, the investigation has revealed the active participation of the petitioner in the illegal mining operations. Specific allegations are found in the FIR with regard to the involvement of the petitioner and therefore, there is no justifiable reason to quash the complaint.