Allowed

Mr. John C Menezes v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024CRL.P/10656/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.2 charged for hunting wildlife with a gun sought quashing of proceedings. Relying on precedent, the court held cognizance under the Wildlife Protection Act, Disaster Management Act and Arms Act provisions was not sustainable on a police charge sheet and quashed the criminal proceedings against him.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.215/2022 before Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidre, arising from Crime No.259/2021, quashed against petitioner.

Mr. John C Menezes Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 10656 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10656 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. JOHN C. MENEZES S/O LATE JENI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT MENEZES COMPOUND, GUDDEYANGADI, PUTTIGE VILLAGE, MOODABIDRE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 226.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BY MOODABIDRE POLICE STATION, MANGALURU TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

MR. DIVAKAR RAI MAJOR,

¶16

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR - 2, MOODABIDRE POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS DATED 30.03.2022 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MOODABIDRE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 25, 27, 30 OF ARMS ACT, SECTION 9, 39 AND 51 OF WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT AND SECTION 51(B) OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 10656 of 2022

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.215/2022, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidre, arising out of Crime No.259/2021 registered by Moodbidri police and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 27, 30 of Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 9, 39, 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶27

It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that he received credible information that the petitioner is hunting wild life animals in the reserved forest area by using a gun and other weapons, and selling their meat at high price to get profit and he is said to be made the forest as slaughter shop for the purpose of making profit. After receipt of the information, the

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 10656 of 2022

¶30

police registered the FIR. After investigation of the matter, filed charge sheet, which is under challenge

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that under the Wildlife Protection Act, the police cannot file the charge sheet and the Court shall cannot take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on the complaint lodged by the persons mentioned in Section 55 of the said Act. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence except on the complaint filed by the authorized officer. It is nothing but the private complaint and the police cannot register FIR. Without proving misdemeanor under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act, the complaint cannot be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, and prayed for quashing the same.

¶32

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 10656 of 2022

¶35

Surinder Singh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) in Criminal Appeal No.2373/2010 decided on 26.11.2021

¶36

Mrinal R. Hebbalkar @ Mrinal Vs. The State of Karnataka and another in Criminal Petition No.8572/2023 decided on 29.11.2023.

¶37

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the petition and contended that the petitioner was hunting the wildlife animals and he was using the flesh of the animals for making profit. The police have already investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. There is prima facie case made out against the petitioner and therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the records.

¶39

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the police registered FIR and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 55 of the Wildlife

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 10656 of 2022

¶42

Protection Act, the Court cannot take cognizance of the complaint filed by the authorised officer as stated in Section 55(a) to (c) of the said Act. Perusal of the provisions in Section 55 clearly say that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence against the said Act except on the complaint of any person other than the officers mentioned therein. The provisions also do not provide for registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet by the police officers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh , cited supra, has held that, in similar situation under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence alleged under the Wildlife Protection Act and therefore, it cannot be sustainable in law. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mrinal R. Hebbalkar, cited supra, has also taken the similar view and quashed the proceedings.

¶43

Now coming to the provisions under the Disaster Management Act, as per Section 60, no Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint filed by the authorities, mentioned therein, and any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in the manner prescribed. In this regard,

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 10656 of 2022

¶45

the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mrinal R. Hebbalkar, cited supra, has quashed criminal proceedings. In this case, the police cannot file charge sheet under the Disaster Management Act. This Court, in various cases, has held that the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence except on the complaint filed by the authorities mentioned in Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act. Therefore, on this ground, the offence alleged under the Disaster Management Act cannot be sustainable.

¶46

As regards the offences alleged under Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Indian Arms Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surinder Singh , cited supra, at paragraphs 28 and 30 of the judgment, has held that illegal use of licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27, without proving misdemeanor under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the offences alleged under the Arms Act as per Sections 25, 27 and 30, also cannot be sustainable in law.

¶47

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 10656 of 2022

¶50

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.215/2022, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidre, arising out of Crime No.259/2021 registered by Moodbidri police, against the petitioner, is hereby quashed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT:SK

Mr. John C Menezes v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. John C Menezes 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

Srijayarame Gowda Vs Teh State of Karnataka

Boregowda Vs State by

Mr Aniruddha Mehta Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Paramashivaiah Vs Sri Basavaraja

Shri Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash M Vs Smt Vijayalaxmi Ramesh