Mr P C Hassainar Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.34/1998 DATED 20.06.1998 NOW NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.97/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., KODAGU, MADIKERI A COPY

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:1931 CRL.P No. 5737 of 2018

¶19

OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE DATED 07.05.2018 A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.

¶20

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners being accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No.34/1998 of Bhagamandala police station, pending in C.C.No.97/2018 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, CJM, Kodagu, Madikeri, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 447, 379, 420, and 201, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 8 of The Karnataka Preservation Of Trees Act, 1976, under Sections 23 and 24 of Karnataka Forest Act, by setting aside the order dated 07.05.2018, taking cognizance of the offence, registering the criminal case by rejecting B-report filed by the Investigating Officer.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1931 CRL.P No. 5737 of 2018

¶25

Heard Smt. Leela P Devadiga, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayana, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. Perused the materials on records.

¶26

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶27

“Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶28

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶29

R E A S O N S

¶30

The accused claimed to be the absolute owners in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.1/1 measuring 16.03 acres, Sy.No.1/23 measuring 75 acres and Sy.No.1/19 measuring 60 acres situated at Kopatti village, Madikeri Taluk. The respondent state is claiming that the said land is a reserved forest. The petitioners have filed the suit O.S.No.56 of

¶31

1996, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri for

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1931 CRL.P No. 5737 of 2018

¶33

declaration of title. They have cut and removed the trees standing in the said land and transported the timber. The respondent had filed the suit O.S.No.12 of 2000, before the learned Senior Sessions Judge, Madikeri, seeking recovery of the value of the timber sold by the accused. It is stated that the said suit came to be dismissed. In the meantime, the respondent filed the first information and the FIR came to be registered for the above said offences. Even though, B- report came to be filed by the Investigating Officer, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as per order dated 07.05.2018 and registered C.C.No.97 of 2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶34

It brought to the notice of the Court that the suit

¶35

that was filed by the accused seeking declaration, came to be decreed, declaring that the accused is the owner of the land, and the trees were cut after getting permission from the concerned authority. It stated that O.S.No.12 of 2000 filed by the respondent for recovery of money in respect of trees that are cut came to be dismissed. Under such circumstances, prima facie , there are no merits in the contention taken by the respondent regarding commission of the offence by the

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1931 CRL.P No. 5737 of 2018

¶37

accused. When prima facie the land in question from where the trees were cut and removed were belonging to the accused and the contention of the respondent that the land is the government land or forest land is not supported by any materials, I am of the opinion that, there are no prima facie materials to proceed with the criminal case.

¶38

It is also brought to the notice of the Court that, accused No. 1 had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.6051 of 2018. The same came to be allowed vide order dated 20.03.2024. When similar allegations are made against accused Nos.1 to 3, I am of the opinion that these petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of the parity with that of accused No.1 and for quashing of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.

¶39

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:1931 CRL.P No. 5737 of 2018

¶43

6 -

¶44

(ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.34/1998 of

¶45

Bhagamandala police station, pending in C.C.No.97/2018 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, CJM, Kodagu, Madikeri registered for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 447, 379, 420, and 201, read with Section 34 of IPC, under Section 8 of The Karnataka Preservation Of Trees Act, 1976 and under Sections 23 and 24 of Karnataka Forest Act, is hereby quashed against the petitioners.

¶46

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶47

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Mr P C Hassainar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr P C Hassainar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju @ Naga Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Joginder Singh Lather Vs Ibm India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri a Maruthi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr. Pascal Mazurier Vs Mrs. Suja Jones Mazurier

Mr. M. Seetharama Vs State of Karnataka