IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P. NO.2628/2019 BETWEEN 1. THOMAS S/O LATE JACOB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC:RETD. PSI R/AT MIG-88, NEW KHB COLONY, RAMASAMUDRA, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313.
ALSO AT CHRISTIAN STREET, NAGAVALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJNAGAR-571313.
2. S LOKESH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC:HEAD CONSTABLE-97, FOREST MOBILE SQUAD, KOLLEGAL, R/AT VIVEKANANDANAGARA, T.N.PURA TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT 571124.
ALSO AT SRIRANGARAJAPURA VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, VYSARAJAPURA, MYSURU-571120.
3. DORESWAMY S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC:HEAD CONSTABLE-139, CHAMARAJANAGARA EAST PS, R/AT POLICE QUARTERS, RAMASAMUDRA, CHAMARAJANGAR-571313 ALSO AT TALKADU HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MALANGI, MUGURU, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571124.
4. K R MAHADESHAIAH S/O LATE RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC:RETD. HEAD CONSTABLE, R/AT NO.11, SHARADA NILAYA, HEGGADE LAYOUT, ALANAHALLI, MYSURU CITY 570028.
ALSO AT KALIYURU VILLAGE, TALKADU HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MAMBALLI, MYSURU-571442.
5. SREEKANTA SWAMY S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC:HEAD CONSTABLE 122, KOLLEGAL TOWN PS, R/AT NO.156, 1ST STAGE, GAYATHRIPURAM, VISHWAKARMA COLONY, MYSURU CITY-570019.
6. MAHADEVU S/O LATE P.MALLIKARJUNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC:HEAD CONSTABLE-118, MM HILLS PS, R/AT DOOR NO.202, GEJJAL NATH VILLAGE, RAMAPURA POST, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571444.
7. MAHESH S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: APC III, DAR HEAD QUARTERS, CHAMARAJANAGARA, R/AT 7-161, RAJA RAJESWARI KALYANA MANTAPA STREET, KOLLEGAL TOWN, CHAMARAJANGAR DISTRICT 571440.
8. MAHIMAI DAS S/O GABRIEL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, THIMIYARPALYA VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANGAR DISTRICT-571444.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI K V THIMMAIAH, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF HANNUR POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 561439 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. R MOHAN KUMAR MAJOR IN AGE, OCC: POLICE INSPECTOR, HANUR POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571439.
(BY SRI H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1.) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.576/2010 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, KOLLEGAL REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 43(1)(a),48(a),51(1) OF THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT R/W 429 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
2. Petition is canvassed on the short ground that the PCR filed into court on 15.08.2010 stands vitiated on account of the registration of an earlier FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. on the complaint of a journalist, alleging offences under various sections of the Wild Life Protection Act.
3. The Investigating Officer pursuant to direction by this court has filed his affidavit dated 23.07.2019 explaining the reasons behind the registration of the FIR and then as to why the private complaint came to be filed. It is not in doubt that the mandate of Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act enables prosecution of accused only by way of a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by an authorized officer only.
4. It is contended by the petitioner that the authorised officer could only be an officer from the forest department. The matter was listed on 23.07.2019 and on the said date, the affidavit having been filed the petitioner is required to demonstrate any error in the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner would merely reiterate the petition contentions about the PCR now registered as C.C. 576/2010 being bad on account of the registration of earlier FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.
5. In the affidavit, the deponent who was the then Investigating Officer and complainant and was officiating as the Police Inspector of the police station has clearly stated that he is an authorized officer in view of the notification No.AFD 104 FWL 73, Bangalore dated 16.10.1973. That under the investigation all officers above the rank of Sub- Inspector of Police are authorized to prefer complaints in respect of offences under the Wild Life Protection Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to rebut the same.
6. As regards the registration of the FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The same would be of no consequences as the prosecution itself, has now invoked the appropriate provisions. Furthermore, it is seen that the complaint is of the year 2009 and the petitioners have been successfully avoiding a logical conclusion of the trial. Hence, no grounds made out. Petition stands rejected.
7. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A. 1/19 for stay does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR