Allowed

Federal Mogul Goetz (India) Limited v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2022WP/1198/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order of cognizance passed by a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Sections 24 and 25 of the Water Act, 1974, for issuing summons without forming an opinion on the existence of an offence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 27.05.2013 in CC No.8343/2013 is quashed; matter remitted to the Magistrate to proceed from cognizance stage afresh.

Federal Mogul Goetz (India) Limited Vs Karnataka… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.1198 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZ (INDIA) LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS) & MANAGER,

¶7

DODDABALLAPUR ROAD,

¶8

YELAHANKA,

¶9

BANGALORE-560064 REPRESENTED BY MR.RAJESH SINHA,

¶10

DIRECTOR OPERATIONS AND FACTORY MANAGER

¶11

MR. RAJESH SINHA DIRECTOR OPERATIONS AND FACTORY MANAGER,

¶12

FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA LIMITED,

¶13

DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, YELAHANKA,

¶14

BANGALORE-560064 ... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI.C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. MAHESH.S ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ASST.ENVIRONMENT OFFICER, NISARGA BHAVAN, IST FLOOR, THIMMAIAH MAIN ROAD, 7TH D MAIN ROAD, SANEGUREVANAHALLI OPP TO PUSHPANJALI THEATRE, MODI HOSPITAL BANGALORE-560010 BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF METRO POLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.8343/2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., r/w Sections 24 and 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the said Act') against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 43 and 44 of the said Act.

¶24

The judicial Magistrate on 27.05.2013 took cognizance of the said offences and issued summons to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶25

Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would make the following submissions:-

¶26

On a complainant filed under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate is

¶27

¶28

required to ascertain as to whether the facts narrated attribute the commission of the said offences and thereby specifically mentioning the said facts, the Judicial Magistrate has to take cognizance of the offences and proceeded with the matter. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate without ascertaining as to whether the facts narrated in the complaint disclose commission of the said offences against the petitioners has taken cognizance.

¶29

• The learned Magistrate before issuance of summons to the petitioners was required to record the reasons, however, the same has been done without application of mind by the magistrate.

¶30

In the present case, in the absence of existence of any prima-facie case, the learned Magistrate without forming an opinion has proceeded further and has issued summons to the petitioners.

¶31

¶32

In support of his submission he has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL V/S. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in 2015 AIR SCW 642 and the decision of the CoOrdinate Bench of this Court in the case of MALLIKARJUNA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE POLICE INSPECTOR, HOSAPETE TOWN POLICE STATION AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2018 KAR 354 .

¶33

He further submits that the complaint does not disclose that the pollution of water was mainly due to the disposal of the pollution efflux by the petitioners. The complaint does not indicate any allegations that the pollution caused to the bore well water is directly contributed by the petitioners. Hence, the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable.

¶34

Sri.Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for

¶35

respondent submits that the learned Magistrate after

¶36

¶37

application of mind has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and as such the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate cannot be faulted with.

¶38

He further submits that learned Magistrate need not assign reasons in detail before taking cognizance and he placed reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in case of

¶39

“UP Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s. Modi Distillery, & anr (1987)-3-SCC- and in the case of SK Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd & Ors reported in (2008)2 492” .

¶40

I have examined the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

Order sheet dated 27.05.2013 reads thus:

¶42

“ Complainant present. Adv SRE present. Cognizance for the offences is taken. Issue SS to accused. Call on 19.06. Sd/- 27/5”.

¶43

The Apex Court in the case of “Sunil Bharti Mittal

¶44

V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2015

¶45

AIR SCW 642” at para 47 has held that :

¶46

¶47

“An opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons”.

¶48

The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of “ Mallikarjuna and others Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2018 KAR 354” supra has held that “ before issuing process, the Magistrate should show that on what material, at least, he has formed his opinion that it is a fit case to issue process ” .

¶49

In the case of UP Pollution Control Board Supra it

¶50

has been held that:

¶51

“It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detail discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. It was further held that whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into consideration improbabilities appearing on face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the

¶52

¶53

complainant in support of the allegations. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him.”

¶54

In the present case, the learned Magistrate without perusing the complaint and without forming an opinion so as to proceed against the accused has taken cognizance and issued summons and the same is contrary to Sections 190 and 204 of Code and also decisions of Apex Court supra. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The writ petition is allowed.

¶57

Order dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Bengaluru in CC No.8343/2013 is hereby quashed.

¶58

Matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate for proceeding further from the stage of taking cognizance and pass order afresh in accordance with law.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60