Allowed¶30

Sri Shantharaju G N., v. the State by

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2025CRL.P/972/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge sheet; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; investigation of forest offence by Police Inspector without authority; Section 62(A) Karnataka Forest Act, 1963; Forest Officer not below rank of Range Forest Officer; illegally uprooted eucalyptus trees; Arehalli Social Forest; seizure of lorry; abuse of process of law; CRL.P No. 972 of 2024; High Court of Karnataka; Justice Hemant Chandangoudar; decided 11 March 2025.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.30/2020 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, Hassan, insofar as they relate to the petitioner (Accused No.2), are quashed. ¶30

Sri Shantharaju G N., Vs the State by — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.30/2020 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, Hassan, insofar as they relate to the petitioner (Accused No.2), are quashed.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No.2) in C.C.No.30/2020 are liable to be quashed on the ground that the investigation was conducted by a Police Inspector, whereas Section 62(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 authorises only a Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Forest Officer to investigate forest offences under the Act.

¶17

Court's answer

By virtue of Section 62(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, only a Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Forest Officer is authorised to conduct investigations into forest offences under the Act; consequently, an investigation into such offences carried out by a Police Inspector is without legal authority.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The investigation conducted by the Police Inspector, the filing of the charge sheet pursuant thereto, and the taking of cognizance of the offences stand vitiated, as the Police Inspector lacked authority to investigate the allegations against the petitioner.

¶29

Key takeaways

On the ground of the vitiated investigation alone, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting quashing of the proceedings qua the petitioner.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C.) — Quashing of charge sheet dated 25.02.2020 in C.C.No.30/2020 (offences under S.379 IPC, 1860; Sections 62, 24(C)(II), 71(A), 143, 24(E) Karnataka Forest Act, 1963; Section 165 Karnataka Forest Rules) — Investigation into the forest offence was conducted by the Police Inspector of Holenarasipura Taluk — Held: Section 62(A) Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 provides that only a Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Forest Officer is authorised to investigate forest offences under the Act; the investigation by the Police Inspector, the resulting charge sheet and the cognizance taken therefore stand vitiated for want of authority, and continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law — Proceedings in C.C.No.30/2020 quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner (Accused No.2).

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:10286 CRL.P No. 972 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 972 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SHANTHARAJU G N., S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT GULLADAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 211.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJU H.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE BY HALLYMYSORE POLICE STATION, HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN-573 211 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, BANGALORE-01.

¶14

SRI ANANTHA H N CHC-101 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, POLICE FOREST SQUAD, SAKALESHAPURA, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ANOOPKUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C BY THE PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 25.02.2020 IN C.C.NO.30/2020 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10286 CRL.P No. 972 of 2024

¶19

OFFENCES P/U/S 379 OF IPC 1860 AND SECTION 62, 24(C)(II), 71(A), 143, 24(E) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND KARNATAKA FOREST RULE (SECTION 165) OF THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN.

¶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/accused No.2, who is facing trial for offenses punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 62, 24(C)(II), 71(A), 143, and 24(E) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, along with Section 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief.

¶24

The prosecution alleges that respondent No.2 received credible information that accused Nos.1 to 3, along with accused No.4, were illegally uprooting and cutting eucalyptus trees in the Arehalli Social Forest and loading them onto a lorry with the help of a JCB. Upon receiving this information, the complainant, along with his staff, conducted an inspection at the spot, where they found a lorry standing with illegally uprooted and cut eucalyptus logs loaded onto it. Upon noticing the raid team, accused No.1 fled from the spot, driving the lorry

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:10286 CRL.P No. 972 of 2024

¶27

away. The raid team pursued and intercepted the lorry, but the driver managed to escape. Consequently, the lorry was seized, and a case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4.

¶28

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

¶29

Admittedly, the Police Inspector of Holenarasipura Taluk conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. However, Section 62(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, explicitly states that only a Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Forest Officer is authorized to conduct investigations into forest offenses under the Act. Therefore, the investigation conducted by the Police Inspector, leading to the filing of the charge sheet and the taking of cognizance of the offenses, stands vitiated, as the Police Inspector lacked the authority to investigate the allegations against the petitioner. On this ground alone, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.30/2020 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, Hassan,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:10286 CRL.P No. 972 of 2024

¶33

insofar as they relate to the petitioner (Accused No.2), are hereby quashed.

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶36

¶37

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8