Allowed

Mr. Ravindra Rajeeva Naik v. the State Reptd by

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2023CRL.P/6442/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed proceedings against the petitioner. The Court held that since the alleged offence was non-cognizable, the investigation required an order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., which was not obtained, making the proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.821/2023 insofar as the petitioner stands are quashed.

Mr. Ravindra Rajeeva Naik Vs the State Reptd by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40760 CRL.P No. 6442 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6442 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. RAVINDRA RAJEEVA NAIK S/O RAJEEVA NAIK AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MUNNUR VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, ULLAL TALUK R/AT NO 1073/5(1) BABUGUDDA, NEAR NAGA BANA ATTAVARA MANGALURU D K 575001

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DINESHKUMAR RAO K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

THE STATE REPTD BY DIVISION FOREST OFFICER OF MANGALURU-575001 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE 560001

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA.,HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.821/2023 (CHARGE SHEETED U/S 33(2)(v) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 AND SEC. 25 AND 43 OF KARNATAKA FOREST RULES 1969) PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC (II COURT) AT MANGALURU.

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40760 CRL.P No. 6442 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33(2)(v) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rules 25 and 43 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969 is impugned in this petition.

¶20

FIR was registered alleging that the petitioners had instigated accused Nos.2 and 3 to cut the standing trees in the forest land.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences alleged against the petitioners are non cognizable, and the respondent No.2 conducted the investigation without obtaining the order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the registration of FIR stands vitiated for non compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

Learned HCGP for the respondent-State submits that the allegation made in the FIR discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner, and veracity of the allegation can be considered at the time of trial. and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40760 CRL.P No. 6442 of 2023

¶25

The offences alleged against the petitioner are noncognizable, and the respondent before conducting investigation was required to obtain an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. However, the respondent without obtaining an order, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. Hence, the registration of FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences stands vitiated for non compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶28

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.821/2023 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Mangaluru insofar petitioner herein stands quashed.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

RKA

¶31

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Mr. Ravindra Rajeeva Naik v. the State Reptd by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ravindra Rajeeva Naik v. the State Reptd by

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. Raghavendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chikkaredappa Vs State of Karnataka

Yasir Arafath Vs State of Karnataka

Bonito Designs Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Santosh Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka

Nasir @ Munna Vs State of Karnataka