Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.101268 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. PARIMALA G AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O. VEERAPPA DOLLIN, ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, GADAG SUB DIVISION, BINKADKATTI, GADAG, KARNATAKA-583103.
2. PRADEEP PAWAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. SHANKARAPPA PAWAR RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KAPPAT HILLS RANGE, MUNDARGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA-582 118.
ASHPAK 3. SACHIN BISANALLI KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O. IRANNA BISANALLI, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, DHARWAD BENCH MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA-582 118.
4. CHANDARAPPA HUYILGOL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. SHIVAPPA B. HUILGOL, FOREST GUARD, KELUR BEAT, MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA-582 118.
5. MAILARAPPA MADIVALAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, -2- S/O. PRABHANNA MADIVALAR, FOREST GUARD, MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA-582 118.
6. FAKKIRAPPA KASHI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O. YALLAPPA KASHI, FOREST GUARD, MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA-582 118.
7. YALAGURUDAPPA KASHINAKUNTI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. HANUMANTARAYA KASHINAKUNTI, FOREST GUARD, MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA-582 118.
8. SOMANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. SHRIKANTAGOUDA PATIL, DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA - 582 118.
9. PRAVEENKUMAR SASVIHALLI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. BASAPPA H. SASVIHALLI, DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA - 582 118.
10. ANANDA LAMANI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. KESHAPPA LAMANI, FOREST WATCHMAN, MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA - 582 118.
11. BASAVARAJ BALAVAGOUDR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O. PARASHURAM BALAVVAGOL, FOREST GUARD, MUNDARAGI, -3- GADAG, KARNATAKA-582 118.
12. GANGAMMA PUJAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O. SHIVAPPA PUJAR, FOREST GUARD, MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA - 582 118.
13. SHIVANANDAPPA GOUDRA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. IRAPPA GOUDRA, FOREST GUARD, MUNDARAGI, GADAG, KARNATAKA - 582 118. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SUNIL .S.DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARGUND SUB DIVISION, MUNDARAGI POLICE STATION, MUNDARGI-582118, GADAG DISTRICT.
2. MALLAPPA BUDIHALA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. HANAMAPPA BUDIHALA, KELUR TALUK, MUNDARAGI, KARNATAKA - 582 118.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ROOM NO.222, II FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) -4- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.03.2022 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 WITH RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE. (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking the quashing of a complaint lodged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 306, 355, 427, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a), and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
FACTS OF THE CASE :
2. The petitioners, who are forest officials, have
approached this Court seeking quashing of the complaint on the grounds that the respondent No.2, with an ulterior motive to continue his illegal occupation of forest land, has initiated criminal proceedings without securing the required -5- sanction. The matter concerns Sy.Nos.56, 57, and 58 of Keluru village, Mundargi Taluk, Gadag District, which were declared "Reserved Forest" land via a notification dated 02.07.1953. Subsequently, an order was issued by the competent authority calling upon unauthorized occupants to hand over possession within 30 days. The petitioners, in their capacity as forest officials, initiated eviction proceedings against the unauthorized occupants, including one Shrikantappa B. Bannikoppa and others. The husband of the victim, Ramanagouda M. Patil, was named as accused No.3.
3. Despite the eviction order and registration of a
crime, the unauthorized occupants were adamant and unwilling to vacate the premises. This situation compelled petitioner No.2 and other forest department staff, with the assistance of local police, to evict the encroachers from the reserved forest land in Sy.Nos.56, 57, and 58. During the eviction process, around 50 protesters, including men and women, resisted by entering the area in tractors, carrying dangerous weapons, and attempting to close the pits and -6- trenches dug by the forest officials. Amidst this chaos, a group of women, including Sarojamma and the deceased, Nirmala, consumed pesticide in protest. While Nirmala was taken to the hospital, she did not receive medical aid for approximately 1 and half hours, resulting in her death. This incident led to the lodging of the present complaint against the petitioners.
4. The petitioners argue that they were acting within
the scope of their official duties while implementing the eviction order. They claim that the complaint against them was lodged without obtaining the mandatory sanction required under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Forest Act,
1963. This provision mandates that no suit or prosecution in
respect of acts done under the colour of duty can be entertained without the prior sanction of the State Government. The petitioners further argue that the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence, particularly under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). -7-
5. Upon examining the material on record, it is
evident that the petitioners were performing their official duty pursuant to an eviction order and the registration of a crime. The relevant provision, Section 114-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, mandates that no suit or prosecution in respect of acts done under the color of duty can be entertained without the prior sanction of the State Government. This protection is essential to ensure that public officials can perform their duties without fear of retaliatory or frivolous legal actions.
6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in a similar case concerning actions against unauthorized occupants,
held that acts done in the discharge of official duty require
sanction under Section 114-A of the Forest Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain1, reinforced this principle by emphasizing the necessity of governmental sanction to protect officials from vexatious and retaliatory prosecutions. AIR 2020 SC 3292 -8-
7. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. preserves the inherent
powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent the misuse of judicial processes and to protect individuals from frivolous and vexatious litigation.
8. In cases where officials are discharging their
lawful duties, Section 482 provides a crucial safeguard. It allows the High Court to intervene and quash complaints that are evidently retaliatory or vindictive in nature, especially when such complaints are filed without adhering to mandatory legal provisions, such as obtaining requisite sanctions. This ensures that public servants can perform their responsibilities without the constant fear of unfounded legal repercussions, thereby maintaining the integrity and efficacy of public administration.
9. The judiciary has consistently emphasized that
while public servants are accountable for their actions, they -9- should also be protected from malicious prosecutions that can hamper their ability to perform official duties effectively. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, a vital tool in upholding justice and preventing the abuse of the legal system.
10. Before this Court proceeds further, this Court
deems it fit to take cognizance of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S. Sadashivappa S/o. Late Siddalingaiah v. State by Dandina Shivara Police Station2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the judgment cited supra, at paragraphs 17 and 18, held as under: "17. Therefore, this is a case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as held by the Apex Court in the case of
STATE OF HARYANA v. BAJANLAL3 as also, the judgment
in the case of PEPSI FOODS LIMITED v. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE4 wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:- "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course…….” Crl.Pet. No.6390/2017 (D.D.14.09.2021) 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 355
(1998) 5 SCC 749 - 10 - Later, the Apex Court in the case of RAJIV THAPAR V. MADAN LAL KAPOOR reported in 2013 (3) SCC 330, has
held as follows:
"30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.PC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is - 11 -
clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BAJANLAL which has been followed in plethora of judgments in the aftermath of BAJANLAL and the judgment in the case of RAJIV THAPAR, the petition deserves to succeed.
18. The other allegation is concerning Section 3 of the
Atrocities Act. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the allegation under the Atrocities Act also cannot be pressed into service, merely because the deceased who died belongs to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as there is nothing beyond what is alleged and considered hereinabove that is alleged even in the complaint."
11. There are no materials to convict the forest
officials under Section 306 IPC. The unfortunate death of Nirmala was primarily due to the failure of her family members to provide medical aid for approximately 1 and half hours after she consumed pesticide. In contrast, the other two women who also consumed pesticide were given timely medical treatment and survived. This indicates that the lack of immediate medical intervention, rather than the actions of the forest officials, was the primary cause of Nirmala's death. It is evident that the forest encroachers have abused the process of law by lodging a frivolous complaint against the officials who were merely discharging their duty to protect - 12 - national wealth by evicting unauthorized occupants from reserved forest land. Instead of being commended for their lawful actions, these officials are being unjustly punished. This misuse of legal provisions to harass public servants performing their duties highlights the need for judicial intervention to prevent the abuse of the legal system and ensure that justice prevails.
12. In the present case, the actions of the petitioners
were clearly in the discharge of their official duties to protect forest land and evict unauthorized occupants. Therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings against them without the requisite sanction is unsustainable. Furthermore, the complaint's primary allegation under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) requires a clear intention and involvement of the accused in aiding or instigating the suicide. The facts of the case do not establish a direct link or nexus between the actions of the petitioners and the suicide attempt by Nirmala. The forest officials were performing their legal duties, and their actions cannot be construed as constituting abetment. - 13 -
13. Based on the above analysis and the judgments
cited, it is clear that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.48/2022 of Mundargi Police Station at Annexure-A, pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Gadag are hereby quashed. iii) In view of the disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE MBS, YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.:88.1