Allowed

K.M. Noban v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2021WP/386/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the second case for the same theft incident, referencing the apex court view against double FIRs for the same occurrence.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.893/2019 (Crime No.81/2019) pending before Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Ponnampet were quashed.

K.M. Noban Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO.386/2020(GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.M. NOBAN S/O LATE MANDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PALLERI, K.BADAGA VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571236 … PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI MAHADEVA R.K., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PONNAMPET POLICE STATION GONIKOPPA CIRCLE KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236 REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

2 . SMT.A.LEENA MANDANNA W/O MANDANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT KASTHURI ESTATE BADRAGOLA VILLAGE, THITHIMATHI KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236 RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 5.3.2020, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT.)

¶13

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.893/2019 (IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME No.81/2019) OF PONNAMPET POLICE STATION, GONIKOPPA CIRCLE, KODAGU DISTRICT, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC, SECTIONS 71(A), 80, 104(A) OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 AND SECTIONS 127A, 165 OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST RULES ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC AT PONNAMPET VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.893/2019 (Crime No.81/2019) pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Court, Ponnampet for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC, Sections 71-A, 80, 104-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Sections 127-A and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and pass such other relief/s as this Court deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶18

¶19

The factual matrix of the case is that, a case has

¶20

been registered against this petitioner based on the complaint of the second respondent making the allegation that this petitioner was indulged in committing the offence of theft of forest produce and the value of the Teak Wood is to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that two cases have been registered against the petitioner one in Crime No.66/2019 dated 16.06.2019 and in respect of the very same theft one more case has been registered i.e., the present Crime No.81/2019, which has been numbered as C.C.No.893/2019.

¶22

The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the two cases have been registered in respect of the same incident. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , the Apex Court held that, there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence

¶23

¶24

giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Even if after conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of the FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2), the officer in charge of the police station come across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, normally with the leave of the Court and forward the further evidence, if any collected, with further report or reports under Section 173(8).

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit that on due verification submits that the two cases are registered and one is already initiated against this petitioner in Crime No.66/2019 and the same has been numbered as C.C.No.181/2020. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case, there cannot be two proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the same incident. Even if any further information is received in respect of the same incident ought not to have filed the separate charge sheet against the petitioner herein. Hence, it is a fit case to

¶26

¶27

exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein.

¶28

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶29

following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶32

(ii) The entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.893/2019 (Crime No.81/2019) pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Court, Ponnampet for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC, Sections 71(A), 80, 104(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Sections 127-A, 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, is hereby quashed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

cp*

K.M. Noban v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M. Noban v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B T Manjappa @ B T Manjappa Gowda Vs State by Thirthahalli Police

Sri Jigar Laxmichand Chadva Vs the State of Karnataka

K J Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Tapas Rudrapatna Vs the Enforcement Officer

Raja Gopala Reddy Vs Smt P N Suvarnamma

N. J. Ravishankar Vs State of Karnataka