SHIVAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case is that the ASI has lodged the complaint alleging that on 29-5-2018 at about 10.30 a.m. the complainant along with his staff was doing patrolling duty in the police jeep to detect persons involved in property offences at Hidkal Dam, Chilabhavi and Aralikatti and thereafter, when they came near Chilabhavi cross at 11.00 a.m. they observed two tempo coming from Aralikatti side and on suspicion, they stopped their jeep and intercepted the said two tempos. The drivers of the said tempos by abandoning their vehicles ran away from the spot. On inspection of tempo bearing No. KA-23/6131 and unnumbered tempo, they found that they have loaded sand and hence having came to know about the drivers of the tempo involved in illegal transportation of sand without having any valid permit, they brought the vehicles to the police station and secured panchas and seized the vehicle and registered Crime No. 190/2018 for the offences under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4(1), 4(1 -A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, the 'Act') and under Rules 3, 32, 42 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'Rules') against unknown persons and the Court below was pleased to take the cognizance and numbered the case as C.C. No. 828/2018 and hence the petitioner is before this Court by filing this petition seeking relief of quashing the impugned order.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner in this case is that the complaint is given by the ASI and based on the complaint case has been registered and not only registered case and investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet, the Court below has erroneously taken the cognizance inspite of there is a bar under Section22 of the special enactment and hence the same has to be quashed.