Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Due To Lack Of Mandatory Statutory Complaint - 2025-08-05

Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Due To Lack Of Mandatory Statutory Complaint

In a significant ruling regarding the procedural sanctity of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has quashed a criminal case dating back to 2009. Justice J. C. Doshi allowed the petition filed by a journalist, finding that the criminal proceedings were initiated in blatant violation of the statutory bar prescribed under Section 55 of the Act.

A Night in Gir: The Disputed Incident

The case stemmed from a November 2009 incident when the petitioner, a correspondent for NDTV, was visiting the Gir National Park and Sanctuary. While refueling his vehicle near the city, the journalist was alerted by villagers to a lion feeding on its prey in a nearby agricultural field. Intrigued, the petitioner and his companions proceeded to the site, where they were subsequently intercepted by a Range Forest Officer. The officer, suspecting a clandestine sting operation, registered an FIR against the group for allegedly disturbing the lion while feeding, invoking various sections of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

The Legal Battle: Procedural Infirmity

The petitioner challenged the FIR, arguing that the allegations did not meet the definition of "hunting" under Section 2(16)(b) of the Act. Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel emphasized a fundamental jurisdictional error: Section 55 of the Act explicitly prohibits courts from taking cognizance of wildlife offences unless the complaint is filed by specific authorized officers, such as the Chief Wildlife Warden. In this case, the prosecution proceeded on a standard police chargesheet, a process the petitioner argued was legally impermissible and an abuse of judicial process.

Judicial Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court’s analysis centered on the legislative intent behind Section 55. The Court observed that the term "complaint" under the Wildlife (Protection) Act does not encompass a police-filed charge-sheet. By failing to initiate the proceedings through the appropriate statutory authority, the prosecution had rendered the trial court’s cognizance of the matter entirely unsustainable.

While the Court noted that the petitioner's actions—flashing lights at a feeding lion—reflected "insensitivity towards the natural habitat," it found that such conduct did not satisfy the strict legal definition of "hunting." As a gesture of remorse, the petitioner voluntarily donated ₹1,00,000 to the Gujarat State Lion Conservation Society, Junagadh, an act the Court acknowledged as a reformative step.

Key Observations

• "Merely disturbing a lion, does not meet the threshold to constitute an offence of ‘hunting’ under the Act."
• "It is manifest from a plain reading of Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, that the legislative intent is clear—no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except upon a complaint filed by the... Chief Wildlife Warden."
• "The initiation of proceedings by way of a police report—rather than a statutory complaint filed by the designated officer—renders the cognizance to be taken by the learned trial Court legally unsustainable."
• "Subjecting the petitioner to the rigours of criminal trial, in such circumstances, would be a travesty of justice and an abuse of the process of law."

Final Order

Allowing the petition, Justice Doshi ordered that the Forest Offence First Report and all subsequent proceedings be quashed. The ruling clarifies that while environmental protection is paramount, the State must strictly adhere to statutory protocols when initiating criminal prosecution. This decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement that in matters governed by specialized legislation, procedural compliance is not merely a formality but a foundational requirement for the rule of law.