Allowed

Shivarama Naik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2021CRL.P/832/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioners via an FIR registered in 2010. The court held that the registration was illegal as the bar under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 prevents police from initiating prosecution without a separate complaint filed before the appropriate court.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.108/2010 were quashed.

Shivarama Naik Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.832/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVARAMA NAIK, SON OF CHIKKAMARI NAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOSA DODDI, BYADARAHALLY POST, HALAGURU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶9

PEER NAIK, SON OF RAM NAIK, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MALAVALLI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-561301. … PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KOTHANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTHANOOR, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU 560001. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.108/2010 ON THE COURT OF XI ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU FOR

¶15

¶16

THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 9, 39, 40, 44, 49 (B AND C), 51 OF THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972 AND SECTIONS 429 AND 397 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.108/2010 on the file of the Court of XI ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent had registered the case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49 (B and C), 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 429 and 397 of IPC. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the FIR and the same was registered in 2010.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that though the case was filed in 2010, till date charge-sheet has not been filed. The learned counsel would contend that the respondent cannot directly register the case and there is a bar under Section 55 of the Act and they have to

¶22

¶23

file a separate complaint and the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners is bad in law.

¶24

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶25

appearing for the respondent State does not dispute the fact that no separate complaint is filed under Section 55 of the Act and the charge-sheet is also not filed.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and considering the material on record, the FIR was registered on 05.08.2010 and the very registration of the case when there is a bar under Section 55 of the Act is bad in law. This Court in Crl.P.No.125/2020 dated 01.04.2021 in detail considered the same issue and quashed the proceedings on the ground that there is a bar under Section 55 of the Act to initiate any prosecution by the police directly without the complaint filed before the appropriate Court and hence it requires interference of this Court.

¶27

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶32

(ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.108/2010 is hereby quashed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Shivarama Naik v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivarama Naik v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Vivek H K Vs the State of Karnataka

D v Yashwanth Kumar Vs State by Sakalespura Town Police Station

Sri Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

T R Prema Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B. R. Prabhakara Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Raghuram K Beluru Vs the State of Karnataka