IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.902 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. K.B.VENKATESH SON OF LATE K.C.BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT CHELAVARA VILLAGE CHAYYANADANE POST MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
... APPELLANT (BY SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT-571 219.
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI-561 201.
3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER CHEYYANDANE FOREST RANGE VIRAJPET DIVISION KODAGU DISTRICT-571 219.
(BY SRI. LAXMINARAYANA, AGA) ... RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.7731/2016 DATED 10/03/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7731 of 2016, wherein the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
2. The instant petition was filed seeking to quash the FIR dated 22.12.2015 bearing FOC No.41/2015-16 lodged against the petitioner and the consequential endorsement with regard to release of his lorry.
3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order rejected the petition. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lorry is required by the appellant. Hence he seeks for release of the lorry.
5. However, on considering the contentions of the learned counsel, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The question of quashing the FIR has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, necessarily the criminal proceedings would have to go on and appropriate relief to the petitioner with regard to the release of the lorry will have to be considered in the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the procedure established in accordance with law, will come to the aid of the petitioner, insofar as the release of the petitioner’s lorry is concerned.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view, the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. We do not find it appropriate to grant such a relief by the Writ Court especially when an alternate remedy is available.
7. I.A.No.1 of 2016 filed for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, the application is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms