Sri Padmaraju H S Vs State of Karnaaka by

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10047 CRL.P No. 1276 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1276 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI PADMARAJU H S S/O SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OFFICE: MARUTHI TIMBERS AND PLYWOOD NO.379, HOSAHALLI VISWANEEDAM POST MAGADI ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 091

¶8

NOW R/AT: #165/A, 11^TH CROSS BENGALURU ONE OPPOSITE GAYATHRI HBCS LAYOUT BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 079.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY R.F.O., BALEHONNUR CHIKMAGALURU-577 112 (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HCK, BANGALORE-01)

¶14

SRI NAGESHGOWDA I E SUB ZONAL FOREST OFFICER SANGAMESHWARA PETE BRANCH BALEHONNUR ZONE CHIKMAGALURU-577 136.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:10047 CRL.P No. 1276 of 2024

¶18

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

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2023 IN C.C.NO.1720/2018, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKAMAGALUR AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME (BHR FOC) NO.3/2011 OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER, BALEHONNUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 24(c)(e), 50(3), 63, 80 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 AND U/S. 144, 164 AND 165 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1969.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner, arraigned as accused No.5, is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 24(C)(e), 24(e), and 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, along with Sections 144 and 164 and Rule 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. He has approached this Court seeking relief.

¶24

The prosecution alleges that, upon receiving credible information, a raid was conducted on land bearing Sy.No.341 of Devadana Village, situated within the Basavanakote Reserved Forest area. During the inspection, four individuals were found cutting standing

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:10047 CRL.P No. 1276 of 2024

¶26

3 -

¶27

teak trees. Upon noticing the raiding team, one individual managed to escape, while the remaining three were apprehended and subsequently arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3. In their confession statements, accused Nos.1 to 3 implicated accused No.5, alleging that the teak trees felled and removed from the said land were supplied to him, as he is the owner of a sawmill. Based on their statements, a raid was conducted on the sawmill owned by accused No.5, where certain teak billets were found stacked without a valid permit.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶29

The offences alleged against the petitioner are non-cognizable in nature. Therefore, prior to conducting an investigation, the Range Forest Officer was required to obtain permission under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, the Range Forest Officer proceeded with the investigation without obtaining such permission. Consequently, the investigation conducted, culminating in the cognizance of the offences, stands vitiated due to noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:10047 CRL.P No. 1276 of 2024

¶32

The petitioner has been implicated as accused No.5 solely based on the confession statements of accused Nos.1 to 3. While certain teak billets were recovered during the raid conducted at the sawmill belonging to accused No.5, there is no substantive evidence to establish a direct nexus between the seized teak billets and the felled teak trees from Sy.No.341 of Devadana Village, Basavanakote Reserved Forest area.

¶33

The petitioner contends that the raid was conducted in his presence and that he had submitted a letter to the Range Forest Officer along with relevant documents proving his lawful purchase of the seized teak billets. However, his explanation was rejected solely on the ground that there was no conclusive evidence linking the recovered teak billets to his lawful ownership. Regardless of whether the teak billets were stacked without a permit, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is unsustainable, as the mandatory provisions of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. were not complied with.

¶34

The Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s application for discharge on the ground that accused Nos.1 to 4 had not questioned the non-compliance with Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, the petitioner could not seek discharge on this basis. This finding is legally

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:10047 CRL.P No. 1276 of 2024

¶37

unsound and erroneous, as the petitioner has an independent right to challenge the proceedings on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶38

8. In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶41

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1720/2018, pending on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶44

HR

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 101

Sri Padmaraju H S v. State of Karnaaka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Padmaraju H S v. State of Karnaaka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. D Abhishek Reddy Vs Mrs. Gowramma

Sri.Noufal M.K Vs State of Karnataka

Thoufique Shareef Vs the State

M/S Klm Axiva Finvest Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mansoor Ali Vs the State of Karnataka