Point of Law: Killed a wild animal with gun - FIR Quashed - When FIR does not disclose any offence against petitioner, FIR, qua petitioner, is required to be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R. No. 47, dated 02.04.2009, under Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 27, 29, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.

2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that on 02.04.2009, a complaint was received in the Police Station Baijnath, wherein, it has been alleged that accused Pappi Ram and co-accused, have killed a wild Sambhar with the gun of Sukh Ram (petitioner herein). On this information, team of officials of Forest Department comprising Range Officer, Deputy Range Block Officer and Forest Guard of the beat reached the spot, where meat of the killed Sambhar was being distributed. On seeing the forest team, 10-15 persons, who were present on the spot, fled the spot and out of them, only two persons were caught by the team and 10 Kg meat of Sambhar was seized. During the course of investigation, it has come on record that the gun, which was involved in the incident, is owned by the petitioner. Consequently, FIR No.47, dated 02.04.2009 came to be registered against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition for quashing of said FIR.

3. Mr. Imran Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case against the petitioner has been registered only on the allegation that his gun was used by the main accused for committing the offence under the Wild Life Protection Act. He has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, as it has come in the report of SFSL that cartridges were not fired from the gun of the petitioner. He has argued that there is a delay of more than 10 years in presenting the challan in the learned Court below and on account of delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioner who is innocent, is suffering. In these circumstance, no purpose would be served by continuing the case against the petitioner and FIR against the petitioner is required to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that it took considerable time to complete the formalities and that is why delay has occurred in presenting the challan. He has further argued that the petitioner had produced the wrong cartridges before the investigating agency, whereas, in fact the cartridges, with which the Sambhar was killed, were fired with his gun. Lastly, he prayed that since there is enough evidence on record to prove the use of petitioner’s gun in killing the wild animal (Sambhar), the present petition be dismissed.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, this Court finds that there is no evidence to connect the gun of the petitioner with the empty cartridges, as report of SFSL shows that cartridges were not fired from the gun of the petitioner and due to lack of such evidence, it will be impossible to hold that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offence. Even otherwise, the gun of the petitioner was not recovered from the spot.

6. So, after taking into consideration the above stated facts which have come on record, it is clear that gun of the petitioner was not at all used in the alleged offence and thus, there is no reason to continue the trial against the petitioner. In these circumstances, when the FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioner, FIR, qua the petitioner, is required to be quashed. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 47, dated 02.04.2009, under Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 27, 29, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., qua the present petitioner, is ordered to be quashed, alongwith the consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, whereas, trial against the other accused persons shall continue.

7. However, the findings recorded by