IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sri Sampanna Mutalik S/o Vijaya Rao Mutalik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.5788 of 2023, Criminal Petition No.5952 of 2023 C/W Criminal Petition No.5741 of 2023
Decided on : 06-10-2023
The court examines the relevant provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The court also refers to the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook, which provides a complete code for the investigation of wildlife offences. The court finds that the procedure outlined in the handbook has not been followed and that there have been violations of the provisions of the Act and the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The accused in this case have filed petitions seeking quashing of the proceedings against them in a criminal case. The petitions are based on procedural irregularities and violations of the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook. The accused argue that the investigation should have been completed under the Wildlife Offence Report and that the registration of a second FIR is barred by law. They also claim that the proceedings are politically motivated. The State argues that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and that the procedural violations do not vitiate the proceedings. The court considers the arguments and examines the relevant provisions of the law and the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that there have been procedural violations in the registration of the case and the taking of cognizance by the magistrate. The procedure outlined in the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook has not been followed. The court also notes that multiple criminal proceedings have been registered on the same offence, which is impermissible in law. The court refers to the judgments in T.T. ANTHONY v. STATE OF KERALA and B.V. BYRE GOWDA v. NISAR AHMED to support its findings. The court concludes that the proceedings are riddled with procedural aberrations and should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court quashes the proceedings against the accused due to procedural irregularities and violations of the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook. The court finds that the investigation should have been completed under the Wildlife Offence Report and that the registration of a second FIR is barred by law. The court also notes that multiple criminal proceedings have been registered on the same offence, which is impermissible in law.
Result: The court allows the criminal petitions and quashes the proceedings against the accused in the criminal case.
ORDER :
Batch of these petitions are preferred by the accused in a solitary crime. Different petitions are preferred by different accused. Criminal Petition No.5952 of 2023 is preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2; Criminal Petition No.5788 of 2023 is preferred by accused No.4 and Criminal Petition No.5741 of 2023 is preferred by accused No.7. They are all accused in Criminal Case No.2319 of 2023 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere. Since facts that trigger registration of the crime are common, these petitions are taken up together and considered by this order.
2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:
(I) Criminal Petition No.5952 of 2023:
(b) Mr. Senthil was interrogated and thereafter, he was arrayed as accused No.1. He tenders his voluntary statement that he was rearing wild animals on instructions of the owner of Kalleshwar Rice Mills located in Anekonda, Davanagere District. Based on the said information, the Women Protection Wing of the CCB along with staff and panchas searched Kalleshwar Rice Mill and drew up a mahazar. The search was conducted on 21-12-2022. The product of the search was communicated to the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Davanagere for further action. The Range Forest Officer then files a written complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davanagere under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against three persons viz., Sampanna, G.M. Karibasaiah and Senthil. Sampanna and G.M. Karibasaiah are petitioners in the subject petition. The offences alleged in the said private complaint are the ones punishable under Sections 9, 39, 44, 48(a) and 51 of the Act. The crux of the complaint was that, on 21-12-2022 the complainant along with his staff members had visited the godown behind Samson Distilleries located in Anekonda Village, Davanagere Taluk wherein, the complainant found items specified, that were illegally kept in unlawful possession of the said accused. The learned Magistrate on filing of the complaint, acting under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. takes cognizance of the offence under Section 51 of the Act. A direction was issued to investigate into the offence acting under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C., to the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Davanagere to conduct investigation and submit a report on or before 21.02.2023. The Investigating Officer then seeks all the documents pertaining to FOC No.1 of 2022, which was registered at Bangalore from the office of the CCB, which had conducted a search at Davanagere. After the said investigation, the Assistant Conservator of Forests registers a FIR under Rule 65(1) of the Karnataka Forest Manual for offences punishable under Sections 9, 40, 42, 42(a), 44, 48(a), 51 and 57 of the Act. Accused No.4 is added into these proceedings. Accused No.4 is the petitioner in the companion petition. On 29-04-2023, the Deputy Conservator of Forests seeks details of the investigation undertaken by the Investigating Officer along with statements of the accused recorded during investigation. As directed by the learned Magistrate, final report was filed before the Court on 08-05-2023. On 08-05-2023, on perusal of th
The main legal point established in this judgment is that procedural irregularities and violations of the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook can lead to the quashing of proceedings in a criminal c....
A counter complaint is always permissible on the same incident as there can be complaints and two FIRs', if it is a case of complaint and counter complaint or a case of consequential complaint.
The discretion of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must be guided by the nature of the alleged offences and the need for police investigation.
The Court ruled that a Magistrate cannot direct police to register and investigate a complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC without following due process as outlined in Section 199 of the CrP....
Procedural requirements for non-cognizable offenses and the interpretation of the alleged offense under Sections 290 of IPC and 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act,1888.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.