Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102028 OF 2025 BETWEEN: FHARUKH S/O. HUSSAIN PEERA BEVINAMARA AGE: 34 YEARS OCC. PRIVATE WORK RESIDENT OF 2ND WARD, NAGENAHALLI HOSPETE TALUK DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGARA-583 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATHI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CID POLICE WILD LIFE PROTECTION DIVISION DANDELI REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA …RESPONDENT Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI PRAVEEN YELLAREDDY, H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN CC NO.446 OF 2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(B), 49(C),50 R/W SECTION 51 OF WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT 1972 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DANDELI. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -2-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(accused No.1) and learned HCGP appearing for respondent/ State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner/accused No.1 has preferred this petition challenging the order passed by learned Magistrate in
C.C.No.446/2023 in taking cognizance and ordering for registration of criminal case against him and accused No.2 under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(B) and (C) and 50 r/w 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
3. Brief factual matrix of the case is that on 11.02.2023 at
about 9.00 a.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police, CID Police, Forest Squad, Dandeli received credible information that accused No.2 and this petitioner herein were trying to sell Indian Red sand Boa snake. Hence, the PSI, his sub-staff and two panchas went to the spot and apprehended this petitioner(accused No.1), who was standing holding a bag and when they inspected the bag, they
-3-
found Indian Red sand Boa snake and the same was seized from the possession of this petitioner and accused No.2 escaped from the spot. Therefore, the Sub-Inspector of police registered the case in WLOR No.1/2023 for the aforesaid offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Thereafter, the PSI seized the snake, vehicle and arrested the accused persons.
4. The first informant-PSI, CID Police Forest Squad,
Dandeli has filed the complaint for the offences under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(B) and (C) and 50 r/w 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and since the complaint was filed by a Public servant in discharge of his public duties, his examination under Section 212 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. The learned JMFC took cognizance for the aforesaid offences and issued process against this petitioner(accused No.1) and accused No.2.
5. Sri Ganapathi M Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner-
accused No.1 submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable as it has not been filed by the competent authority as per the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Further, due to private vengeance, the PSI has filed private complaint against the petitioner. Further, accused No.1/petitioner has been falsely -4- implicated in the case on false accusations and there is no corroborative material to establish that the petitioner is involved in this case.
6. Firstly, it is just and necessary to peruse Section 55 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 which reads as under:
55. Cognizance of offences. -
No Court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than- (a)the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or (aa)Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A; or (ab)Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or (ac)Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or [(ad) the Management Authority or any officer, including an officer of the Wild Life Crime Control Bureau, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or] (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 (bb)the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38-J; or (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 -5-
Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.”
7. On meticulous reading and understanding the above provision, it gives empowerment to certain officers to lodge the
complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate. There is absolutely no power that has been given to the police to lodge any private complaint otherwise than the officers, who are attached to the forest, zoo etc.
8. Section 55(c) of The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 give
empowerment to some special persons that means 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, such person can also make a complaint. But, there is no such factual averments made in the complaint filed by the PSI that he is the person who has given notice to the petitioner herein with regard to alleged offences and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central
Government or to the State Government or the officers authorized, as aforesaid, that means, the officer who comes under Section 55(a) to (bb). In the absence of such averments in -6- the complaint, the complainant has to show that either he is authorised to lodge the complaint or he is authorized to so do in the notification issued by the competent authority.
9. Learned H.C.G.P relied upon the decision in the case of
Sri S. Bylaiah vs State By Bannerghatta Police reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1892, wherein at para 6, the Coordinate Bench of this Court recorded the notification bearing No. AFD 104 FWL 73 dated 16.10.1973, wherein the Government authorised the following persons to take note of forest offences under the Act and to file complaints in the court of law:
(i)all the Forest Officers of and above the rank of a forester,
(ii) all the Officers of and above the rank of a Sub- Inspector of Police, and
(iii) all the Revenue Officers of and above the rank of a Revenue Inspector.
10. Even considering the said notification issued by the
Government, who are the above the rank of PSI can lodge the complaint and Sub-Inspector of Police are not authorized under the said Act or under said notification. No other notification was -7- brought to the Court to show the empowerment of Sub Inspector to lodge a complaint under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
11. Under the above circumstances, taking cognizance by
the Magistrate itself is bad in law. As such further proceedings are also vitiated by serious irregularity particularly against accused No.1. This Court already quash entire proceedings against accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.101667/2024.
12. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a good case for quashing of proceedings initiated against him. Hence, I pass the following
ORDER
1. Criminal petition is allowed. Consequently, all further
proceedings in C.C.No.446/2023(arising out of complaint in WLOR No.01/2023) on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dandeli sofar it relates to petitioner-accused No.1 is hereby quashed. -8-
2. However, it is left open to the competent authorities, if need be, to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, against the accused persons.
3. Pending IA's, if any, stand disposed of, as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 9