Karnataka High Court
Mrs Alpana Bhartia vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2015
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6787/2014
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. ALPANA BHARTIA
W/O MR. ALOK BHARTIA, 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.101, PARIJAT APARTMENTS
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. MRS. ARUSHI PODAR
W/O MR. AMITABH PODAR, 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.23, 2ND CROSS, 9TH MAIN
SADHASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 082.
3. MRS. GAURI MAINI HIRA
W/O MR. KABIR HIRA, 45 YEARS
R/AT T2, ASHOKA APARTMENTS
NO.229, DEFENCE COLONY
3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 038.
4. MRS. NAMRATA DUGAR
W/O MR. RAMESH KUMAR DUGAR, 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.24/2, 3RD MAIN
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 082. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT./SRI
B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY
CRIME BRANCH
HOME DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 1.
2. MR. M NAGARAJA
S/O MR. MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KAGGALIPURA RANGE
KAGGALIPURA RANGE FOREST OFFICE
KAGGALIPURA
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ALL PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.4350/2014, PENDING BEFORE THE C.J.M. RURAL
COURT AT BANGALORE & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Aditya Sondhi, learned senior counsel for petitioners and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for State.
3
2. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application filed under section 321 Cr.P.C., by the prosecution to withdraw the case.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows:-
The petitioners are the founder trustees of 'People for Animals' (for short, 'P.F.A.'), a registered Public Charitable Trust formed in the year 1998, with the objects of promoting and encouraging greater awareness for animal rights. In the process, petitioners have protected and preserved 80 black kites. However, 20 black kites got infected. The petitioners made their best efforts to save them by providing medical assistance through veterinary doctors. After making all the best efforts, the veterinary doctor suggested for euthanasia and 20 black kites were subjected to euthanasia. The II- respondent filed a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act'). The Government after realising that continuation of prosecution will not serve 4 any useful purpose and there is no mens rea on the part of petitioners, made an application under section 321 Cr.P.C., to withdraw prosecution. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application in terms of the impugned order.
4. The Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case had suggested for withdrawal of prosecution.
5. At the out set, it is necessary to state that prosecution does not indicate that petitioners had come in possession of aforestated black kites for any commercial purpose or they had possessed black kites to sell them in market for personal gain. The records indicate that petitioners are the founder trustees of 'People for Animals', a registered Public Charitable Trust formed in the year 1998, with the objects of promoting and encouraging greater awareness for animal rights. The petitioners as a part of their activities have protected and preserved 80 black kites. When 20 black kites 5 got infected, they provided medical assistance to them. When treatment was not progressive, the veterinary doctor suggested for euthanasia of 20 black kites. Accordingly, 20 black kites were subjected to euthanasia.
6. The Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the background of petitioners, the circumstances in which 20 black kites were subjected to euthanasia, has made an application under section 321 Cr.P.C., for withdrawal of prosecution. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application.
7. On hearing the learned senior counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP, I find that petitioners being the founder trustees of 'People for Animals', a registered Public Charitable Trust formed in the year 1998, with the objects of promoting and encouraging greater awareness for animal rights, had taken recourse to subject 20 black kites to euthanasia, which is a medical process. It is not the case of 6 prosecution that petitioners had haunted or trapped black kites for commercial exploitation. In the circumstances, the continuation of prosecution will not serve any public purpose. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor had made an application under section 321 Cr.P.C., to withdraw prosecution. The learned trial Judge, without considering the background of case and absence of mens rea on the part of petitioners had dismissed the application. In my considered opinion, there was no mens rea on the part of petitioners. The petitioners had subjected 20 black kites to euthanasia as per medical advice. The prosecution case does not reveal that petitioners had trapped 20 black kites for commercial exploitation or for some other illegal purpose. Therefore, the continuation of prosecution will not serve any useful purpose. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge should have granted permission to withdraw prosecution. 7
8. Therefore, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is accepted. The orders dated 21.12.2013 and 25.07.2014 of the learned Magistrate are set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case. Communicate this order to the trial court.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN