Dismissed

Sri M N Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2021CRL.P/936/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings alleging forest encroachment. The Court held that disputed facts regarding the extent of trespass and tree felling require a full trial and are not suitable for summary disposal under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition rejected.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash charge-sheet and proceedings rejected; Interim application for stay also disposed of.

Sri M N Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.936/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M.N. MANJUNATH, S/O NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O No.53, 25^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 082. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PRAKASH B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KANAKAPURA RANGE, RAMANAGAR DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET VIDE ANNEXURE-E AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.645/2012 ARISING OUT OF CASE CR.NO.FOC.NO.42/1011 DATED 22.02.2011 OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KANAKAPURA RANGE, KANAKAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 24(a), (c)(ii) (d)(e), 73(d), 32(2)(iii)(a)(v)(vi)(2) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND RULES 25 OF KARNATAKA

¶14

¶15

FOREST RULES, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.645/2012 arising out of case Crime No.FOC 42/2010-11 dated 26.05.2012 of Range Forest Officer, Kanakapura Range, Kanakapura for the offence punishable under Section 24(a), (c)(ii), (d),(e), 73(d), 32(2)(iii)(a)(v)(vi)(2) of Karnataka Forest Act and Rule 25 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein initiated the criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein making the allegation that the petitioner is the grantee of quarrying lease granted by the State of Karnataka to an extent of 4 acres in Survey No.67 of Kabbehalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District covered under the registered quarrying lease deed No.728 dated 20.08.2005 for quarrying multi colour granite. The allegation in the charge-sheet is that

¶20

¶21

this petitioner in excess of the lease area illegally trespassed the land of Forest Department and caused damage to the boundary line and also unauthorisedly felled trees 100 meters inside the forest area, which consists of gomal land and thereby committed the above offence. It is also an allegation that 1.8 tons of firewood was also seized and Tata Hitachi vehicle was seized and thereafter as per the Court order, the vehicle was released. There are eye-witnesses to the incident and investigation is conducted and charge-sheet is filed.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner has not encroached the forest area or indulged in such activity as alleged in the chargesheet. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.38415-38420/2019 and other connected matters dated 24.06.2011, wherein this Court referred the matter to the Rule 11 Committee to pass an order and interim order which has been granted earlier is subsisting and no report is given by the Rule 11 Committee. The learned counsel would submit that no survey is conducted and no report is given with regard to encroachment and hence there cannot be any criminal prosecution against the petitioner.

¶23

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶25

Pleader would appearing for the respondent would contend that the judgment passed by this Court in the above connected writ petitions will not come to the aid of the petitioner herein wherein they have challenged invoking of writ jurisdiction quashing the Government order dated 30.05.2006 and the modified Government order dated 21.06.2006 stopping all quarrying operations in Bengaluru Rural District. The learned counsel would contend that this is a criminal prosecution against the petitioner for destroying the boundary line and also encroaching upon the property belonging to the Forest Department and felling of the tress and investigation has been conducted and charge-sheet is filed. It is a matter of trial with regard to whether the petitioner has trespassed the land of the Forest Department or not and there cannot be any quashing of the proceedings by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and on perusal of the charge-sheet, allegation is made against the petitioner that this petitioner caused damage to the boundary line and also fell the trees belonging to the

¶27

¶28

Forest Department to the extent of 100 meters including gomal land and violated the Forest Act and Rules.

¶29

Having taken note of the grounds urged in the

¶30

petition and the material collected by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge-sheet, specific allegation made against the petitioner is that he entered the forest land and caused damage to the boundary line and fell the trees. When such being the allegations made in the charge-sheet, it is rightly pointed out by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the order passed by this Court in writ petition will not come to the aid of the petitioner. The disputed question of encroachment and causing damage to the boundary line and felling of trees cannot be decided in a proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The statement of the witnesses, which have been recorded during the course of investigation are also to be ascertained while conducting the trial. This Court cannot consider the issue involved between the parties with regard to whether such alleged acts are done within 4 acres of land which has been leased out to the petitioner and whether the said act has been

¶31

done beyond the lease extent is a disputed question and the same has to be ascertained only by conducting a full fledged

¶32

¶33

trial. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings and it requires trial.

¶34

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶35

following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is rejected.

¶38

In view of rejection of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 for

¶39

stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sri M N Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M N Manjunath 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

Vinod Vs State by K.G. Halli Police Station

Shri. G.T. Shanthakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vinayak B Kale Vs State of Karnataka

A.P.Velayudhan Vs Marattukulam M K

Sri Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Subhash Chandra Vs State by K.R.Pete Rural Police Station