Mr Hullurayya S/O. Lakshammayya vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1208 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102522/2021

BETWEEN:

HULLURAYYA S/O. LAKSHAMMAYYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O AGNIBANNIRAYANAGAR,
SATYAMANGALA, TUMKURU-572101
                                                 ...PETITIONER.
(BY SHRI SUYOG HERELE. E, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER
HIREKERUR,
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001
                                                 ...RESPONDENT.
(BY SHRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP.)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR BEARING NO. HKR FOC CRIME 08/2021-22 AND COMPLAINT
DATED 13.08.2021 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 9 AND 51 OF WILDLIFE
PROTECTION ACT, 1972, (PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2),
ETC.,.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                2




                            ORDER

Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the respondent in unison submit that the issue in the lis is

covered by the judgment rendered by this Court on 30.11.2021

in Crl.P.No.101698/2021, wherein this Court has held as

follows:

2. The petitioner being accused No.2 in FIR bearing No.HKR.FOC.Crime No.8/2021-22 of Karnataka Forest Department registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is before this court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, Forest Guard, Masur village, Hirekerur Range submitted a report to the Range Forest Officer stating that the accused caught 85 bats by laying a net near Kumudwati rivar and thereby contravened Sections 9 punishable under Section 51 of the Act. The same was registered in FIR bearing No.HKR.FOC.Crime No.8/2021-22 on 13.08.2021. On the basis of the said report, the complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. as required under Section 55 of the Act.

4. The accused is before this court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

5. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Murthy Dayanand Naik, Sri.M.L.Vanti for the petitioner and

learned HCGP Sri.Praveen K.Uppar for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sections 9 and 51 of the Act are not at all attracted to the facts of the present case, in view of the specific wordings found in Section 9 of the Act r/w Schedule-V. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the criminal proceedings.

7. Learned HCGP fairly submitted that the facts of the case do not attract Section 9 of the Act, in view of the specific wordings found therein, when it is read along with Schedule-V of the Act.

8. Perused the material on record. The point that would arise for my consideration is:

Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 9 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

9. It is the specific contention of the complainant that the accused has committed the offence under Section 9 punishable under Section 51 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act reads as under:

"9. Prohibition of hunting.- No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, II and IV except as provided under Section 11 and Section 12."

10. Admittedly, the Bat referred to in the complaint is not described in Schedule I, II, III or

IV of the Act. But on the other hand, Schedule-V of the Act described 'fruit bats' at Sl.No.3. However, hunting of the animal specified under Schedule-V is not an offence under Section 9 of the Act. Under such circumstances, the penal provision under Section 51 of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, I answer the above point in the "Affirmative" and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

The FIR No.HKR.FOC.Crime No.8/2021-22 of Karnataka Forest Department registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against the petitioner herein is quashed.

2. For the reasons indicated in the order passed on

30.11.2021, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in

HKR FOC CRIME 08/2021-22 of Karnataka Forest Department,

stands quashed against the petitioner.

SD JUDGE Mrk/-