g _
IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGKLé"Rfi:_""_4' A'
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAYOF
CRL.P.NO.997{2O03::"'W %
BEFORE:-, ' T %
THE HONBLE MR; ,msTIcE §{.Ar§A§J:i)}m;""
CRIMINAL PETITION€I_§_O;9_97 OF 2003
CRIMINAL PE"Ti':I'ICN:':*N~Of-033 %or? 2003
BETWEEW '
I.
DAISY J;:s_.c'0E«.,__ _ '
WV/"Cr Jacoreg 'THOMAS _
AGED 36 Y':3:;a.--a>_s'« ._ ' -
THANI'{A'I'HOF'«ESTATE'~
KOP4't3"TY VILLAGE ,_ '
BAGAMANDALA.
AVMADIKERP} * V .. PETITIONER
:'{B}%,.A'Sri.'~-C..H.HEXNUMANTHARAYAPPA SRCOUNSEL FOR
5-I
x .gKODAGU DXST
Sri. P }'I Pk'J_NNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
fS'I'A'f£' .(§P'AKARNATAKA
BY THE' RA§GE FOREST OFFICER
BA53PxMANDALA
.. RESPONDENT
V' gay $z1'.B.B2\LAKRISHNA, HCGP}
I.
(31?éL.P.NO.709/2003:
" BETWEEN:
P C ASSAINAR { HUSSAINAR)
S[G MAMMALI, 54 YRS
SIDBAPUR (KODAGU)
*2m9F%%A L
2. BABU JOSEPH s/0 JOSEPH
48 YRS V _ V
MAEIKERIROAD ._ I
SIDDAPUR (KODAGU} PETITIONERSA
{By Sri. S G BI-IAGAVAN, ADVOGATE)
AND
M JAYA S/O MANA.CHA
MAJOR
RANGE FOREST OFFICER L
MADIKERI
KODAGU V '"r..RESPONI)EN'I'
(By sz~i:..r3v.}';2.(g1,i5{i§;?1S:«:fg>!_g§.';--Hc:3P§ H »
cI>;L.Ps'AF:i;;E13V"ti:/343*; GREG VPRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS '13»: N:>."-.2225/02 on THE FILE on THE
JMFQ, M_A2;>;KERr 'o.1=*AL4K01gAr:g;V._ursT.,
The:§(~:--4 .petition$~,v_"cefi:4i11g on for haering, this day,
the magi; following:
ORDER
The fiéfjtioners arrayed as accused 1 to 3 in
“锫.. ‘j”C.C.N§;B§25/2002 have filed mesa petitions to quash
2. I have heard Sri.S.G.Bhagawan, learned
counsel appearing for petitioner in Cirl.P.No.’709/2003
Sri.C.H. Hanumantharayappa, learned senior eounel
appearing for petitioner in CrI.P.No.997/20933:’-«4_.e;,nd
learned Government Pleader for State.
3. The brief facts necesSa_1’y.. for d;seposé;:¢1″et1;¢sen’ee
petitions are as follows:
On 18.06.1998 n§a.;oge e’:+*o:¢s: A T’
Bhagamandala lodged f1r$t——-VVin;foi*matjon ‘ with
Bhagamandala trespass and
felling of ti1nt>erv.._in 1/ 15 which
according a’. goeemment reserve
forest. [ V
4. The registereci in Crime
No_,B4/ ” of Bhégéonanfiala police station against
.:C’1*!V._P.No.997/2003 and others for
of?eneesV”[.p’oni-ehab’xe’yonder Sections 447, 468, 379,
also for violation of Rules 164, I44
.: under Section 24 of Karnataka Forest Act;
was handed over to COD.
” The Deputy Superintendent of Police Special
‘Squad COD Bangaiore after detailed investigafion
L/”\” –
The investigation was initiated
information filed under Secfion
The ixlvestigafion p_roc(_;ede_ei” ” K ” V
provisions of Chaptevizj .. :ofA me .
-Procedure _
Magistrate on of B.’ isportii in the
absence of in the form of
oompiaim: “Cr.P.C. should
Vprofifisions of Sections 200,
202 and .
The disputes, is of civil
nature. ” ;’I’I1e. filed a suit for
of 1,77,63,17?/»~ from
pefitianegs No.99?’/2003 and it
Of:S.No.12/2000 on the file of
Lzdge V(S¥”.Dn.), Madikeri.
petitioners have filed
MVT\a%.oP.’No.13935/1999, inter alia, contending
they have not encroached any part of
reserved forest in Sy.No. 1/ I5.
my gfiw. — 5
(iv) The learned Magstrate did 11(::»t_”* –i:”fi:1svs
jurisdiction to record sworn
informant by iiivoldngissprovisioxis V
200 C:’.P.C.
(V) The learned liave ‘V V
jurisdiction’ 4:9 issse by
involdng Cr.P.C.
(vi) The:, Q; j} .5?’ is in
found either in the
first said to
have ii informant.
Therefore, the Maésirate did not have
:_’j’7a:::y ‘against petitioners in
(‘i’.’1″‘3..;_.l3″.i\i<")'.'A?:('V'JV".?i;:A/
The ipijjstest pietjtion filed by first informant is
* ~ with Section 200 Cr. P. C.
'ieaifned Magistrate did not have any
to proceed against petitioners to try
wsxrant case instituted upon police remrt
3 according to provisions of Chapter XIXTE
W . Q/sq L45/\.'w»w'Q/(""'~'y
(ix) The continuation of proceodings _
court: below would be abuse_.~o-f ‘v
court.
Therefore. the learned .
impugned proceedings are
9. The learned would submit
that learned Mogistrat€:”o.i1: submitted
by Depufiy. kk Police coo had
invoking Section
19o(1io€?~)..%
10. counsel for petitioners
_ Withi ” vvpvestigation papers and impugned
:3? ‘ffoiftntflatxa the following poirats for
V
“m wimmer the learned Mam°s11’ate was justifiod
” in recording sworn statement of first
informant on receipt: of B report submitted by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police COD?
‘ L/if
or that it is a civil dispute or that the7’e…i!.é ” 5
evzdence’ three courses are open H
Magistrate; Ii} either to “‘B’V”‘
Summary report and dm;)__ 3 f
or (ii) on of ‘
the police to make
take of my,
disclosed on Where the
Magistrate, AtVhe’_ ‘I;?v’ having
not
The revision
fie” in criminal
T7» no order passed by
the ‘Wm’ * pmaengs
the Sessions Judge had
, entertain the revision. While
V £5.30, the Sessions Judge was not also
‘ mam’ ‘ the Magistrate to
the ‘B’ summary report once again
V to the 2″‘ respondent. Where
1 there is a complaint made to the Aefagistrate
A * the Magistrate refers the complaint to the
police under Sedion 156(3) and on
Enrwestigation the police submit ‘B’ summwy
report and the oaznplainant protests to the
acceptance of the ‘B’ summary report, in such
cases the Magistrate may take cwnizarwe on
the original oompiamt made to him, ” ,
sworn statement under Section 200 it
there is no complaint »io_ihe _
the question of the
cognizance on the of
does not arise, it
memo is not mine fqreffq_r
there are no V ” any
ofienoe irithe there is
also no ‘There are no
such the filed in
;5.:m._:’: it not a oomplaint
of that eawression as
defined s.e¢t~.;::n 2(a) of the Code of
_ because oomplaint as
” allegation made orally or
to a Magistrate, with a view to his
under this Code, that some
pertsoéry whether known or unknown, has
~oo’mmitted an ofienoe, but does not include a
it ‘ report. Therefore, the Sessions Judge
V’ was wholly in error in entertaining the
revision and directing the Magistrate to
oonsidertheoaseqfiemh.
therefore ailowed, The impugned order
passed by the Sessions Judge, is set aside
and the order passed by the Magistrate
so i ‘
acc@ting the :3: summary report is re,si:oreg;V1’§__: A’
The complainant is sun at lrbertyV§”-._he’iV’_;s*e” A
chooses to make a eorr.plwIrfii [the V
Magistrate. ”
In the case on hand, eepon
the first informant ‘not’ in the
form of complaint RC. and had
not u11derta1_’:e’1’§’£~.e:t;zj alleged against
petifionezfi filed the first
informant discrepancies in
the ‘B’ Eras’ learned Magistrate to
reject ., \s
” has rejected the B report. The
Ieafeedw consideration of 13 report did not
ifitresfigati_1 1§gATagency to make further investigation.
.. 0therV__A}1and, the learned Magistzate proceeded to
‘swegn statement and issued pmcess by invoking
. 204 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the procedure adopted by
Magisirate and impugned older passed thereon
weannot be sustained. X 5. ~—–
13. The leariaed Magistrate on receipt of
not proceeded in aecouiance with law. ‘A
reasons as to why first infoxmaestu/M fdgest
should suffer on account of errors
Magistrate. Therefore I am opiiaieni
reconsideration by the stage of
receipt ofBrepox’t. i ii
14. ‘i’h<~:l ii'le;:-iiiied counsel for
petitionersi. fievemment against
pefitioiiexts i;-a1~"ie…p:;§nding, is a matter for
<:onsid:Veiatio3i.iiiiei2t:f:Iiig iixivestigatioxz of the case.
'A petificns are accepted. The impugned
is" The matter is remanded to learned
Magi-smite Ie–consideIat1'o1:x from the stage of receipt of B
"the light of the observations made herein and in
ii with law. Sdlé
Iudg:3
cm/~