The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order accepting a final report in a case involving an elephant attack. The court rejected the plea due to lack of petitioner diligence and merits.
The criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed as being devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1608 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
Somanna K.A. S/o Late Appacha Aged about 59 years R/at Karadigodu Village and post Siddapura Virajpet Taluk – 571253.
.. Petitioner
(By Sri. T.A. Karumbaiah – Advocate (Absent))
AND
..Respondents
(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K – HCGP for R-1)
: 2 :
This Criminal Petition filed Under Section, 482 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, on the protest petition filed by the petitioner complainant challenging the B- Report and direct some other independent investigating agency and submit the final report after investigation within a specific period.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
None appear for the petitioner either physically or through video conferencing. But the matter is slated for removal of office objections to proceed further, for the third time. Neither the counsel for the petitioner who is on record nor the petitioner being the complainant, is diligent or vigilant to cure the defects under the Curial Law, to proceed further.
: 3 :
JMFC, Virajpet. But the court having jurisdiction has rendered an order dated 13.08.2018 in respect of orders on cognizance, whereby the protest petition filed by the complainant who is the petitioner before this court, is hereby rejected. Consequently, the ‘B’ final report submitted by the Investigating Agency of Siddapura P.S. is hereby accepted, which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order.
: 4 :
would not be possible for a public servant to discharge his duties without fear or favour. Therefore, it is the duty of the Magistrate also to apply his mind before taking cognizance against a public servant upon a complaint which is filed without a sanction.
: 5 :
lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.
: 6 :
registering the case in Cr.No.13/2018 against the respondents herein. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the responsible authorities under the Karnataka Forest Act and so also the Wild Life Protection Act. But they have been arraigned as Accused Nos.2 to 4 inclusive of Accused No.1 of Siddapura P.S., Kodagu, in view of crime having been registered against them.
of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Virajpet having jurisdiction accepting the ‘B’ final report submitted by the I.O., Siddapura P.S., it is said that this court cannot dwell in detail about the factum of charges even though it has been narrated in the FIR said to be recorded by the police having jurisdiction in Cr.No.13/2018 dated 23.01.2018. A reasoned order has been passed by the court having jurisdiction by referring to the materials which finds place in the record as well as the substance in the FIR. But the Investigating Officer who investigated the case under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has filed a ‘B’ report relating to the allegations made in the complaint filed by the complainant who is a gravamen of the incident.
: 7 :
dwell in detail about the factum of charges even though it
is narrated in the FIR recorded by the police having jurisdiction. Therefore, this petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner / complainant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merits.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order accepting the final report deserves to be entertained given the lack of vigilance by the petitioner.
Whether the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC correctly quashed the case registered against the respondents and accepted the 'B' final report.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Kumar and Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa and AnotherReferred¶26
Anil Kumar and Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another (2013) 10 SCC 705 · Who else cites this
Dalgit Singh Ghai and Another vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶32
Dalgit Singh Ghai and Another vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 2003 KAR 4849) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Somanna K.A.
State of Karnataka
Lingaraju
Mariya Krishnaraj
Gangadhar
K. SOMASHEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
