IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5892 OF 2019 Between:
Addengada Teja @ Nanjappa S/o late Uthappa, Aged about 51 years, Adhar Furniture, Gonikoppa Town, R/o Devanoor Village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District – 571 218. …Petitioner (By Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty .H, Advocate) And:
1. K. Nagesh Police Inspector, DCIB Madikeri, Kodagu District – 571 201.
2. State of Karnataka Gonikoppa Police Station, Rep: By High Court SPP, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondents (By Smt. K.P. Yashodha, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR relating to the Crime No.66/2019 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court, Ponnampet, Kodagu against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sections 104-A, 24, 71-A, 80 of Karnataka Forest Act and under Sections 144, 165, 127-A of Karnataka Forest Rules and Sections 379, 420, 465, 489, 468, 471 of IPC, 1860 produced herewith as Document No.1 and allow this criminal petition with costs throughout.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“a) Quash the FIR relating to the Crime No.66/2019 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Ponnampet, Kodagu against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sections 104(A), 24, 71(A), 80 of Karnataka Forest Act and under Sections 144, 165, 127(A) of Karnataka Forest Rules and Sections 379, 420, 465, 489, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 produced herewith as Document No.1.
b) Allow this Criminal Petition with costs throughout and grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.”.
2. On the previous occasion, learned State counsel was directed to verify as to why the petitioner’s name has been cropped up in the matter. Today, learned counsel for the State furnished the voluntary statement of accused No.1-Nobhan K.M., who has disclosed the petitioner’s name that he was also involved in the offences relating to Forest and Section 379 of IPC. It was also submitted that petitioner is involved in another case registered in the Ponnampet Police Station.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a licence holder in respect of furniture trading. The alleged offence is relating to Rules 144 and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short). Rule 144 relates to transportation of the forest produce and Rule 165 of the Rules relates to penalty. DCIB informed the illegal cutting of trees and transportation in the jurisdiction of Gonikoppa on 16.06.2019. Pursuant to the DCIB report, Station Officer, Gonikoppa Police have registered a FIR on 16.06.2019. During the course of investigation, Sri. Nobhan K.M. (accused No.1) in his voluntary statement discloses the petitioner’s name that petitioner was also involved with him in the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless and until necessary materials ascertained in respect of Rule 144 of the Rules, the petitioner’s name cannot be included in the case. Unless and until the ingredients of Rule 144 of the Rules is taken into consideration, Police Officer or Competent Authority are not empowered to take any action.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Question for consideration in the present petition is that whether this Court can interfere with the FIR registered on 16.06.2019 at this stage or not?
6. The matter is at the initial stage. Accused No.1 has disclosed in his voluntary statement that petitioner is also involved in the offence relating to forest. That apart, petitioner is also involved in another case registered in Ponnampet Police Station.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2019 SC 847 at paragraph No.9 has held as under:
“9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceedings shall not be interdicted.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is aptly applicable to the present case. Accordingly, petitioner has not made out a case. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM