Allowed

Y S Yogananda v. State by Range Forest

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2023CRL.P/4298/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed to quash an FIR and order under Forest Act provisions charged with unauthorized forest entry for loading stones was allowed. The court reasoned that since a prior writ permitted the license holder to lift stones from the specific land, the allegation of unauthorized entry lacked substance and did not constitute an offence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned FOC No.49/2021-22 in FIR 17/2021 quashed.

Y S Yogananda Vs State by Range Forest — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35772 CRL.P No. 4298 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4298 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Y S YOGANANDA S/O Y K SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT YACHENAHALLI VILLAGE BANNUR HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571439

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER SRIRANGAPATNA RANGE MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 2. DEPUTY CONSERVATIVE FOREST OFFICER SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN BRANCH SRIRANGAPATNA RANGE MANDYA DISTRICT-571438

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT.M.M.WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRIRANGAPATNA ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.457 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN FOC.NO.49/2021-22 IN FIR NO.17/2021 ORDER DATED 19.05.2021 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1 AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:35772 CRL.P No. 4298 of 2021

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 33, 39(vii), 62, 73(d) and 80 of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 2 of the Forest Act.

¶23

The Range Forest Officer registered a suo-muoto complaint against the petitioner alleging that, the petitioner by entering the forest unauthorizedly parked the lorries bearing No.KA-55-7659, KA-55-7650, KA-55-7648, KA-55-6422, KA-55-7649 and KA-55-6395 in the forest land for the purpose of loading crushing stones in the land bearing Sy.No.185 measuring 6 acre and 20 guntas of the Hangarahalli Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya. The registration of the FIR is impugned in this petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lorries were parked for the purpose of loading of the crushed stones from the stone quarry unit established by one K.Manjunath who is the license holder. He further submits that in W.P.No.3228/2015 this Court permitted the license holder to lift 4,700 metric tons of crushed stones. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioners by entering the forest land unauthorizedly attempted to load crushed stones illegally is without any substance.

¶25

Learned HCGP for the respondent-State submits that the petitioners by unauthorizedly entering the forest land have committed the aforesaid offence and the veracity of the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:35772 CRL.P No. 4298 of 2021

¶28

allegations have to to be investigated and at this stage, the registration of the FIR does not warrant interference.

¶29

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

This Court in W.P.No.3228/2015 permitted the licence holder to lift 4,700 metric tons of crushed stones in land bearing Sy.No.185 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas. It is inferred that the petitioner had entered the forest land for the purpose of loading crushed stones and therefore, he cannot be said to have entered the forest land unauthorizedly. Even accepting the allegations, on the face of it, the same does not constitute the commission of offence alleged against the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶33

ii. The impugned FOC No.49/2021-22 in FIR 17/2021 registered by the respondent No.1 stands quashed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67

Y S Yogananda v. State by Range Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y S Yogananda v. State by Range Forest

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

Dr Sudhakara G Vs State of Karnataka by

Pradyumna S Vs State by Mico Layout

Mr Kuber Das Vs State of Karnataka

Sudheesh R Vs the Station House Officer

Shri S G Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Naval Kishore Maloo Vs State of Karnataka