Allowed

Gurumurthy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2023CRL.P/7126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against petitioners for wildlife offenses. The Court quashed the case because the charge sheet was filed by a Sub-Inspector, who lacked authorization under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as per a 2010 notification.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition CRL.P No. 7126 of 2021 allowed; proceedings in C.C. No. 935/2017 regarding accused Nos. 1 and 3 quashed.

Gurumurthy Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35150 CRL.P No. 7126 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7126 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

GURUMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATABOVI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT SHANTHINAGAR, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE-562 123.

¶7

SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT BAGALAGUNTE, 8TH MYLI, CHANNAMMA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 054.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. LOHITHA J N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUDUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

SRI.MURALIDHARA M.K. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUDUR POLICE STATION, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2, SERVED)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AT ANNEXURE-B SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:35150 CRL.P No. 7126 of 2021

¶18

PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MAGADI IN C.C.NO.935/2017 TO THE EXTENT OF PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED IN CRIME NO.260/2015 DATED 15.08.2015 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.2,9,39,48,49,51,52 OF WILD LIFE ACT 1972 AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State.

¶22

Respondent No.2 though served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or through his counsel.

¶23

The petitioners-accused No.1 and 3 are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 2,9,39, 48, 49, 51, 52 of the Wild Life Animal Protection Act, 1972, and Section 41(d), 102 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 379 of IPC, alleging that, the petitioners and other accused were found transporting a type of snake for the purpose of selling and on the same allegation, accused No.2 had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.2550/2021, and this Court quashed the impugned proceedings against the accused No.2 by observing as follows:

¶24

“4. Now, if Section 55 of the Act is perused, it becomes clear that it clearly sets out the officer who can file a complaint before the jurisdictional court. The court has to take cognizance only on the complaint. Therefore, only complaint is maintainable. Clause (b) of Section 55 of the Act also shows that any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government may also make a complaint i.e., going by the notification dated 26.08.2010, the Police officer above the rank of Sub-Inspector is

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35150 CRL.P No. 7126 of 2021

¶26

authorized by virtue of the notification. In the case on hand, charge sheet has been filed by SubInspector of Police who is not authorized according to the notification dated 26.8.2010. Therefore, the charge sheet is not valid. In this view, the proceeding before the Magistrate needs to be quashed. However, liberty is to be accorded to the concerned officer to take action in accordance with law.”

¶27

Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Crl.P.No.2550/2021, since the investigation was conducted by the officer below the rank of Police Inspector.

¶28

5. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. The Criminal petition is allowed;

¶31

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.935/2017 on the file of the 1^st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Magadi, insofar it relates to accused Nos.1 and 3 stands quashed.

¶32

iii. This order shall not come in the way of the respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Gurumurthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurumurthy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R T Mukunda Vs Shekar K S

Sri K M Ravindra Vs State by Kadugodi Police

R.Raghunatha Setty Vs the State of Karnataka

New Sivarama Krishna Fertilizers Vs Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers

Jaibunnisa Uchil Hussain Vs the State of Karnataka

Fakirappa Hatti Vs State of Karnataka