IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4224 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
M.G. Aliyas, S/o. Vergees, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Coolie in Rubber Plantation, R/at Vaddarakoppa (Shankarapura), Muthinakoppa Village, N.R.Pura Taluk – 577 134. …Petitioner (By Sri. R.B., Deshpande, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By RFO, Madaboor, N.R.Pura Taluk – 577 134. ...Respondent (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash FIR in FOC No.48/2012-13 registered by Range Forest Officer, Madaboor, N.R.Pura Taluk and its consequential proceedings pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Narasimharajapura.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in FOC No.48/2012-13 registered by the Range Forest Officer, Madaboor, N.R.Pura Village.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent.
3. The principal contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that registration of FIR in the instant case is opposed to the provisions of Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short).
4. Section 55 of the Act reads as under:
“55. Cognizance of offences. – No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act 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) the 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] (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 38J; 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 Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.] The said provision bars cognizance and not the institution of the case. The Range Forest Officer has only submitted a report to the police. Court has not yet taken cognizance of the alleged offences. Nonetheless, in view of Section 55 of the Act, only the authorized person could initiate action for violation of the provisions of the act by making a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and not by lodging a report to the police. Since the investigation is commenced contrary to the above mandatory provisions, the impugned proceedings are liable to quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR in FOC No.48/2012-13 registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 39(b)(c), 44, 48, 49(B), 50 and 51 of the Act, are quashed. Liberty is reserved to the authorized officers under the Act, to file necessary complaint in accordance with Section 55 of the Act and proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE SV