Sri.Sunil Kumar Sales S Vs the State of Karnataka by

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4351 WP No. 34006 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 34006 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SUNIL KUMAR SALES S S//O. SRI. SHANTHA MARI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.472/423, 2^ND CROSS, 28^TH WARD, OPO ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPUR, KARNATAKA-562101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001 2. SRI. MANOJ KUMAR D.S, S/O. UNKNOWN AGED ABOUT UNKNOWN YEARS, WORKING AS SUB-INSPECTOR GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560085.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO A.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4351 WP No. 34006 of 2024

¶18

DIRECTION QUASHING THE WILDLIFE OFFENCE REPORT NO.03/2023 REGISTERED BY THE GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, SUBMITTED THROUGH PCR NO.5607/2023 DATED 21.08.2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 9, 39, 40, 48A, 49B, 50, 51, 55(B) OF WLP ACT, 1972, REGISTERED THE CASE HAVING TAKEN COGNIZANCE IN CC.NO.20971/2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED COURT OF THE XXXII ACMM AT BENGALURU ON 21.08.2023 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A1) AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶23

"(a) Issue appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the Wildlife Offence Report No.03/2023 registered by the Girinagar Police Station, submitted through PCR No.5607/2023 dated 21.08.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 48A, 49B, 50, 51, 55(B) of WLP Act, 1972; registered the case having taken cognizance in CC No.20971/2023 against the petitioner before the Learned Court of the

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4351 WP No. 34006 of 2024

¶25

XXXII ACMM at Bengaluru on 21.08.2023 (vide Annexure-A1).

¶26

(b) Pass/issue such other needy directions/orders in favour of the Petitioner under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶28

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶29

In addition, reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 in order to point out that the offences alleged against the petitioner under Section 9, 39, 40, 48A, 49B, 50, 51, 55(B) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 are non-cognizable offences, since punishment is less than three years in terms of schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code and consequently in the absence of necessary permission from the Magistrate, the respondents were not entitled to conduct investigation by registering a FIR and impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:4351 WP No. 34006 of 2024

¶32

It is also pointed out that under Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act, it is only the competent officer who is entitled to file a complaint for the purpose of taking cognizance, in the absence of which, the Trial Court was not justified in taking cognizance of the offences pursuant to the complaint dated 21.08.2023 in PCR No.8607/2023 filed by the respondent No.2/Sub-Inspector of Police who is not a competent officer within the meaning of Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶33

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶34

Pleader submits that there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to the dismissed.

¶35

A perusal of the offences alleged against the petitioner read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, will clearly indicate that all the offences are punishable with a sentence of three years which is treated as non-cognizable offence within the meaning of Schedule - I of Part (2) of Criminal Procedure Code. It follows there from that necessary permission ought to have been obtained by the respondent

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:4351 WP No. 34006 of 2024

¶38

under Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code prior to conducting investigation and proceeding further in the matter, in the absence of which, as held by a Coordinate Bench of this

¶39

Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) Vs. The State of Karnataka, through PSI, Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi - ILR 2020 KAR 630, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶40

I also find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2/ Inspector of Police is not a competent officer within the meaning of Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act which reads as under:

¶41

"Section 55. Cognizance of offence - No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act on the complaint of any person other than-

¶42

(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government; or

¶43

(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or]

¶44

(ab) Member Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4351 WP No. 34006 of 2024

¶46

(ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or

¶47

(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government [subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government]; or

¶48

(bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38]; or

¶49

(c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid."

¶50

In the instant case, it is undisputed fact as borne out from the material on record that the complaint was given by the respondent No.2/police inspector, who does not fit into any of the categories enumerated under Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act and consequently, the Trial Court clearly fell in an error in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and on this ground also the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶51

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶52

ORDER

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:4351 WP No. 34006 of 2024

¶55

a) Petition is allowed.

¶56

b) The wildlife offence report No.03/2023 registered by the Girinagar Police Station, submitted through PCR No.8607/2023 dated 21.08.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 48A, 49B, 50, 51, 55(B) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 which was registered in C.C.No.20971/2023 against the petitioner before the XXXII ACMM at Bengaluru dated 21.08.2023 is hereby quashed.

¶57

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶58

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri.Sunil Kumar Sales S v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Sunil Kumar Sales S v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Mr Bhagwan Singh M R Vs State by Kumbalgodu Ps

Sri. Antony Konnel Sebastian, Vs the State of Karnataka

Poovanna @ M. a. Poovanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Bharath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Karthikeya Ravindra Kodkani Vs Station House Officer

Sri Thimma Reddy C Vs the State by Anekal Police