Karnataka High Court
M/S Soni Granites vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.88/2017
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Soni Granites,
(A Partnership Firm)
Having its Office at
Sindhur Complex
B.H.Road, Kankapura Taluk
Then Bengaluru Rural District
Now Ramanagara District - 562 117
Represented by its Partner
Mr.Balachandra Rao
2. Mr.A.N.Ramesh,
Major
Manager
M/s.Soni Granites
Sindhur Complex
B.H.Road
Kankapura Taluk
Then Bengaluru Rural District
Now Ramangara District -562 117
3. Nagesh.K.S.,
S/o Late Kalegowda
Aged years
-2-
Resident of Somedyapanahalli Village
Kothanur Post
Kasba Hobli
Kankapura Taluk
Then Bengaluru Rural District
Now Ramangara District -562 126
4. N.Balachandra Rao
S/o Narasingha Rao
Aged years
C/o Radhabai
Kelagenakote
Acharabeedi
Kankapura Taluk
Then Bengaluru Rural District
Now Ramangara District
... Petitioners
(By Shri.Prasanna Kumar.P, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By Range Forest Officer
Kanakapura Range
Taluk Kanakapura
District Ramanagaram
Represented by the State
Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bangalore - 560 001
2. G.L.Balaraju
Major,
Forest Officer,
Dodahallahalli Branch
-3-
Sathnur Range
Sathnur, Kankapura Taluk
Ramanagar District ... Respondents
(By Shri Vijayakumar Majage, , Additional State Public
Prosecutor for R1; R2 -served)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the order dated
06.01.2005 passed by the C.J. (Jr.Dn) and J.M.F.C.,
Kanakapura in C.C.No.26/2007 thereby taking cognizance
against the petitioners for the offence P/U/S 33(2) & 73(d) of
the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Rule 25(2)(3) & (6) & Rule
144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and Section 2 of the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and ordering to register case and
issue summons in so far as the same relates to the petitioners
/accused No.1 to 4.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners claim that the second respondent - Forest Officer and the first respondent - Range Forest Officer are said to have conducted a mahazar on 15.4.2006 in land bearing Sy.Nos.303 and 304, measuring 4 acres and 10 guntas -4- falling within the Arkavathi Minor Forest. It is alleged that the petitioners had quarried the land and had extracted the multi coloured granite and on the basis of the mahazar, a case in FOC.No.3/2006-2007 is said to have been registered alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 24(a)(c)(f)(g)(gg) and (h) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and investigation was taken up. The offence alleged under Section 24 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment of less than three years and the offence would be classified as a non- cognizable offence. It is pointed out that the respondents, who have registered the case invoking a non cognizable offence, are duty bound to obtain an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate before registering a case and conduct an investigation as required under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which has not been complied with and proceeded to register a case and investigate the same, which is without jurisdiction and on completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed -5- against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners had encroached the above said land which is part of the Arkavathi Minor Forest and have illegally extracted the granite and therefore, have violated Sections 30 and 33(2)(iii)(a) and 73(d) of the Act and the Rules thereunder. It is this procedure that is sought to be questioned in the present petition as falling foul of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this regard, the learned counsel would draw attention to the annexures to the petition to disclose that it is the wrong procedure that has been adopted in proceeding against the petitioners.
3. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks time to obtain the record and verify whether there are any infirmities. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners the annexed copies would straightaway indicate that there is indeed an infirmity which would vitiate the proceedings. Consequently, the petition is summarily allowed -6- and the proceedings are quashed and this would not preclude the State from instituting a fresh proceeding in accordance with law in respect of the alleged offence.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-