Karnataka High Court
Dawood M D vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2028 OF 2013
C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5275 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. DAWOOD M.D,
S/O LATE BABA SAHEB,
46 YEARS,
R/AT CHENNANAKOLLI,
GONIKOPPAL - 571 216,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
2. FIROZ @ FIZOL,
S/O ABDUL RAZAK,
AGED 31 YEARS,
DRIVER, ARVATHOKLU VILLAGE,
GONIKOPPAL - 571 216,
KODAGU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS.
IN CRL.P.NO.2028/2013
(BY SRI.T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADV.)
BETWEEN:
NOBAN MANDAPPA,
S/O MANDAPPA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
BADAGA VILLAGE,
KUTTA POST - 571 237,
KODAGU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
IN CRL.P.NO.5275/2012
(BY SRI.T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADV.)
2
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PONNAMPET POLICE,
PONNAMPET,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 222. ... RESPONDENT
COMMON IN
BOTH PETITIONS.
(BY SRI KESHAVA MURTHY,
ADDL. SPP)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
CRL.P NO.2028/2013 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.160/2011 REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT - POLICE ON THE BASIS OF THE
COMPLAINT DATED 09.10.2011, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES
TO THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ACCUSED NOS.10 AND 11
PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC,
PONNAMPET.
CRL.P NO.5275/2012 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.160/2011 REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT - POLICE ON THE BASIS OF THE
COMPLAINT DATED 09.10.2011, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES
TO THE PETITIONER WHO IS ACCUSED NO.9 PENDING
BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, PONNAMPET.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Accused Nos.9, 10 and 11 in Crime No.160/2011 registered with Ponnampet Police pending on the file of JMFC Court, Ponnampet, have come up in these petitions, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477-A, 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 62, 71(A), 144 and 104(A) of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Rule 127(A) and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules and Sections 8, 15 and 19 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976.
2. The aforesaid complaint is filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Virajpet Division, Virajpet. The accusation is against 11 persons, out of which four are forest guards and others are bidders, drivers and owners of lorry, which is used for transportation of wood. The complaint is on the basis that there is tampering and misuse of permits issued in Form No.7 by accused Nos.1 to 11 in transporting timber out of Forest in excess of the quantity for which permit was issued for its transportation from various depot to the mill of the bidders in the auction. It is seen that the 4 allegations of excess transportation is to the tune of 1353.5052 cubic metres. Out of which, the offence committed by the petitioners herein is to a certain extent as referred to in the complaint. It is also stated that misappropriation amounts to more than Rs.5,74,00,000/-.
3. The accused Nos.9, 10 and 11 have come up in these petitions on the premise that the accused No.9 is a bonafide bidder in the auction and he has not committed any offence in transporting the goods in excess of the permit issued in his favour. The accused Nos.10 and 11 claiming themselves as owner and driver of the lorry involved in transporting the goods contending that they have not transported goods in excess of permit limit. When admittedly the entire matter is ceased with Ponnampet Police for investigation involving several other persons other than petitioner herein, question of quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.9, 10 and 11 at this stage does not arise. It would amount to stalling the entire investigation procedure with reference to alleged misappropriation to the tune of nearly 5.74 crore, which is not permissible. When the offence alleged being as grave as 5 this, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. In fact on every complaint, investigation is a must, only under extraordinary circumstance, where the complaint prima facie appears to be motivated or on the basis of false and frivolous materials, then the Court can consider quashing the same, that too in rarest of rare cases.
4. In the instant case the magnitude of the offence alleged being serious and the persons involved being the staff of Forest Department, investigation into the said offence is a must. Therefore, quashing the proceedings would be inappropriate and against the interest of the Forest Department and the same cannot be considered. Accordingly these petitions are dismissed as premature in nature.
In view of the dismissal of these petitions, question of considering I.A.I/2014 filed seeking vacating stay does not arise and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
AGV.