Allowed

Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024CRL.P/9034/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of hunting wildlife in a reserved forest sought quashing of proceedings under the Arms Act, Wild Life Protection Act and Disaster Management Act. Holding that Section 55 bars cognizance except on complaint of specified officers, and following its earlier order quashing proceedings against accused No.2, the High Court quashed the entire case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.215/2022 arising out of Crime No.259/2021 quashed against the petitioners.

Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42010 CRL.P No. 9034 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9034 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRINIVAS, S/O GURUVA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A HONNE KATTE MANE, KUDRIPADAVU, KALLAMUNDKUR GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 274.

¶8

JOYAL ANIL D'SOUZA, S/O FRANSIS D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A KANNA MANE, BELUVAI GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 213.

¶9

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

GURU PRASAD, S/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A HONNE KATTE MANE, KUDRIPADAVU, KALLAMUNDKUR GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 274.

¶11

MICHAEL D'SOUZA, S/O VINCENT D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A KODYADKA ROAD, MITABYLU POST, PUTTIGE GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42010 CRL.P No. 9034 of 2024

¶13

NONNAYYA, S/O MUDHURA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT KEMAARA, PALLADKA GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶14

AJAY, S/O BASKAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/A SHETTY GUDE MANE, KUDRIPADAVU, KALLAMUNDKUR GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 274.

¶15

SANATH, S/O SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/A KAPIKADU MANE, KUDRIPADAVU, KALLAMUNDKUR GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 274.

¶16

HARISH POOJARI, S/O MARAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A JANUGURI MANE, PALLADKA GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶17

MOHAN GOWDA, S/O SHOKA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, CENTS, POPADI KALLU, KADAMDALLE GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶18

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42010 CRL.P No. 9034 of 2024

¶19

VINAY POOJARI, S/O DHUJA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT B.M.R HOUSE, BOLLA KODI, BOLLA GRAMA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI - 574 110.

¶20

RAMESH, S/O MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A POPADI KALLU, KADAMDALLE GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶21

GANESH, S/O MANJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A KUDRIPADAVU POST, KALLAMUNDKUR GRAMA, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 274.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MOODIBDRI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶26

DIVAKAR RAI, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR IN AGE, POLICE INSPECTOR, MOODABIDRI POLICE STATION, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:42010 CRL.P No. 9034 of 2024

¶31

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) 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 JMFC, AT MOODABIDRI IN CC NO.215/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/US 25, 27, 30 OF ARMS ACT AND UNDER SECTION 9, 39, 51 OF WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT AND U/S 51(B) OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶33

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3, accused Nos.4 to 13 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.215 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.259 of 2021 registered by Moodabidri 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 the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:42010 CRL.P No. 9034 of 2024

¶39

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶40

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No.1/Police.

¶41

The case of the prosecution is that the Moodabidri Police registered a suo-moto case against the petitioners alleging that on 15.08.2021, they received credible information that the petitioners and others are 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 the petitioners are said to be made the forest as slaughter shop for the purpose of making profit. After receiving credible information, FIR has been registered against the petitioners and after due investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be continued as it is the abuse of process of law, that the Respondent No.1/Police apart from Arms Act and NDMA Act, have invoked Sections 9, 39 and 51 of Wildlife Protection Act. It is further contended that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act, except on a complaint of the Officers mentioned therein, the Police cannot register the FIR.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42010 CRL.P No. 9034 of 2024

¶44

Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings against the petitioners in respect of the Wildlife Protection Act does not arise at all. It is further contended that the petitioners had a licensed Gun. It is also contended 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. He also submitted that the proceedings against accused No.2 was quashed in Crl.P.No.10656 of 2022 by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2024. Therefore, the case of the petitioners herein also be considered on the ground of parity and prayed to quash the proceedings against them.

¶45

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶46

has objected the petition and contended that the petitioners were hunting the wildlife animals and were using the flesh of the animals for making profit. The police have already investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet. There is primafacie case made out against the petitioners and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶47

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel on

¶48

both side and perused the records and also the judgment dated 27.03.2024 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.10656 of 2022

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:42010 CRL.P No. 9034 of 2024

¶51

wherein this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments:

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

On careful reading of the order passed by this Court and also the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that admittedly, the case was registered by Respondent No.1/Police under the Wild Life Protection Act. That apart, the police have also invoked the provisions of Section 51(b) under Disaster and Management Act, 2005. Under Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act, except on a complaint of the Officers mentioned therein. Hence, there is a gross violation by the Respondent No.1/Police in following the procedure in registering FIR as against the petitioners. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42010 CRL.P No. 9034 of 2024

¶56

continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶59

DH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK

Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivas 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

Sri Narahari @ Benaka Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran @ Twist Imran Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S Vijaykumar Vs Mr Narayanappa

Girish Kumar K Vs State of Karnataka

Safeer Vs State of Karnataka by