Allowed

Smt Daisy Jacob v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024CRL.P/6051/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings for cutting trees on land the State claimed as reserved forest. The civil court had declared the petitioner owner of the land. Holding no offence under the Karnataka Forest Act arose on declared private land where tree-cutting was permitted, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No.97/2018 in F.I.R. No.34/1998 against petitioner quashed; order dated 07.05.2018 taking cognizance set aside.

Smt Daisy Jacob Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11559 CRL.P NO.6051 OF 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6051 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. DAISY JACOB W/O JACOB THOMAS D/O T.V. SKARIA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MANIYANICHAL, MADACHAL POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA - 682 021.

¶8

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: HOUSE NO.54/310-A, ‘SHELUMIEL’ JAWHAR NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, KERALA - 682 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH B.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY R .F. O. BHAGAMANDALA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11559 CRL.P NO.6051 OF 2018

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07^TH MAY, 2018 IN C.C.NO.97 OF 2018 IN F.I.R. NO.34 OF 1998 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KODAGU, MADIKERI BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS.

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

¶17

"Set aside the order dated 7.5.2018 in C.C.No.97/2018 in F.I.R. No.34/1998 on the file of the senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kodagu, Madikeri by quashing the entire proceedings."

¶18

The petitioner claims to the absolute owner in respect of the land bearing Survey No.1/1 measuring to an extent of 16.03 acres; Survey No.1/23 measuring to an extent of 75 acres; and Survey No.1/19 measuring to an extent of 60 acres (earlier being portion of Survey No.1/1 measuring to an extent of 151.03 acres) all situate at Kopatti Village, Madikeri Taluk.

¶19

The respondent-State is claiming that the said land is reserved forest and the petitioner had filed Original Suit

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11559 CRL.P NO.6051 OF 2018

¶21

No.53 of 1996 before the Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri for declaration of title in respect of the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner having obtained the permission from the concerned authority had cut certain trees in the said land and transported the timber.

¶22

As regards the same, the respondent filed suit in Original Suit No.12 of 2000 before the Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri, which came to be dismissed. The respondent has filed F.I.R No.34 of 1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 379, 420 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 8 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act; and Sections 23 and 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act.

¶23

Cognizance has been taken and process has been issued and same was challenged before this Court and matter was remitted to the Trial Court. In pursuance thereto, by order dated 07^th May, 2018, the Trial Court rejected the 'B' report and took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:11559 CRL.P NO.6051 OF 2018

¶26

Sri. Prakash B.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, though at the time of filing of complaint, the suit was still pending. The suit came to be decreed during the pendency of the complaint, declaring the petitioner to be the owner of the aforesaid land. Once the petitioner has been declared as owner of the land and the trees have been cut after obtaining permission from the concerned authority, it cannot be said that any of the offence alleged have been committed since the allegation is in respect of reserved forest. The declaration being that the land is private land belonging to the petitioner, no offence as regards to any reserved forest in the said private land as alleged in the complaint, is made out.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that even the suit filed by the respondent in Original Suit No.12 of 2000, seeking for recovery of money in respect of cutting of trees is also dismissed. The declaration granted in favour of the petitioner has been challenged in Regular First Appeal No.384-385 of 2011. The First Appeal filed in respect of dismissal of the

¶28

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11559 CRL.P NO.6051 OF 2018

¶29

suit of the respondent is pending in Regular First Appeal No.385 of 2011. In view of the aforesaid fact, he submits that the Criminal Proceedings cannot be continued against the petitioner.

¶30

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the allegation is with regard to reserved forest and offence is under Karnataka Tree Preservation Act for having cut the standing tree, which is a distinct offence and hence, the prosecution can be done.

¶31

The offence of cutting the trees in reserved forest would arise only if the trees in the reserved forest have been cut. As contended by Sri. Prakash B.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Trial Court, in Original Suit No.53 of 1996 held that the land in question is a private land. If that be so, no offence is committed in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act or Forest Rules, more so the petitioner having obtained permission from the concerned authority to cut the trees. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:11559 CRL.P NO.6051 OF 2018

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

1. Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶36

1. The entire proceedings in C.C. No.97 of 2018 in F.I.R. No.34 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kodagu, Madikeri as against the petitioner is hereby quashed, Consequently order dated 07^th May, 2018 in F.I.R. No.34 of 1998 is set-aside.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

ARK

Smt Daisy Jacob v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Daisy Jacob 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society Vs State of Karnataka

K.v.Kishore Vs M/S Rajesh Exports Ltd.

Ms. Neha Bharati Vs Dental Council of India

Srinivasulu Puttur Vs Ms. S Saraswathy

Sri N Krishna Murthy Vs Sri D S Siddaraju

Sri. B M Murthy Vs State of Karnataka