SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
S.S. Lingaraja - Appellant
Versus
B. Selvakumar - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 12752 of 2016 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 6596 & 6597 of 2016
Decided On : 31-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :P.V.S. Giridhar for M/s. Giridhar, Sai, Advocates.
For the Respondent:T. Mohan, Advocate.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 482, 200, 195 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 193, 211, 221, 330, 354, 448, 499 and 506(ii) - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Section 60 - Criminal intimidation – Punishment for false evidence – Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Case of respondent/complainant, before Court below is that, petitioner/accused is Conservator of Forests in Temple (BRT) Tiger Reserve - Respondent/complainant was an agricultural labour in a private firm, in District, and he is also assisting people working for conservation of forest and wildlife by gathering information about the poachers and traders of wild animal parts in and around Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (STR) area - Whether from material available on record, sufficient ground is made out for proceeding against accused - Whether a particular act is done by a public servant in discharge of his official duties is substantially one of fact and it has to be determined in the circumstances of each case - Whether petitioner acted in good faith or not is a matter for trial - Whether petitioner is protected under Section 60 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, cannot be decided at this stage – Held, It is settled law that at time of taking cognizance Magistrate is only expected to see whether from material available on record, sufficient ground is made out for proceeding against the accused - In instant case, Judicial Magistrate after considering entire materials is of opinion that prima facie case is made out against petitioner/accused, taken cognizance and issued process and court do not find any infirmity or illegality in above proceedings - Criminal original petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records related to C.C.No.55 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam and quash the same.

1. The petitioner/accused has filed the present criminal original petition to quash the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 193, 211, 221, 330, 354, 448, 499 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

2. The case of the respondent/complainant, before the Court below is that, the petitioner/accused Mr.S.S.Lingaraja is the Conservator of Forests in Biligirirangan Temple (BRT) Tiger Reserve, Chamraj Nagar, Karnataka. The respondent/complainant was an agricultural labour in a private firm, in Nilgiris District, and he is also assisting people working for conservation of forest and wildlife by gathering information about the poachers and traders of wild animal parts in and around Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (STR) area.

3. During the month of September, 2015, the respondent/complainant, has gathered information that, two persons belonging to Mavanatham village of Sathyamangalam Taluk was in possession of tiger bones and claws and they are trying to sell the same. He immediately passed on the information to one Mr.Jayachandran, a conservationist and an informer to the forest department regarding illegal poaching. Mr.Jayachandran, in turn, passed on the information to the forest department and they requested the respondent/complainant to act as a decoy to lure the poachers to bring the wildlife parts.

4. Then the respondent/complainant approached the poachers and they assured that they will bring the materials to the Karnataka Forest area adjoining Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve. Then Mr.Jayachandran contacted one Mr.Muthanna of Karnataka State, and requested for his assistance. Mr.Muthanna, in turn, informed the Conservator of Forest, BRT Tiger Reserve and the forest officials also made a plan to arrest the poachers. However, the poachers have changed the venue in the last minute and they came to Hasanur Forest area in STR.

5. When the respondent/complainant and others approached the poachers in the Tamil Nadu Territory, the petitioner/accused and his team entered into STR area, which is situated in Tamil Nadu territory, and on seeing them, the poachers run away from the scene abandoning the materials brought by them. The petitioner/accused and his team deliberately did not take any steps to nab the culprits, however they caught hold of the respondent/complainant and tortured him, and by coercion, ill treatment and physical violence compelling him to give confession implicating Mr.Jayachandran and Mr.Muthanna. The petitioner/accused also forcefully obtained the signature of the respondent/complainant and took him to his native village in Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode district and vandalised his house situated in Sirumugai village and misbehaved with his wife and molested her in his presence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a false complaint against the respondent/complainant and produced him before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chamraj Nagar, Karanataka, in a fake case fabricated by the petitioner/accused, as if the respondent/complainant was found with tiger bones and he also criminally intimidated him not to reveal the truth.

6. In the meantime, the Conservator of Forest, STR, registered a separate case and arrested the poachers in the STR area and recovered the remaining tiger claws and bones from their possession, subsequently the forest officials of STR area written to the petitioner/accused to transfer the case to Tamil Nadu as the occurrence took place in STR area, Tamil Nadu.

7. Alleging that the petitioner/accused committed various offence under the Indian Penal Code as mentioned above, a private complaint has been filed before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, wherein, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate took

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top