- 1 - CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2962 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. M/S JYOTI BROTHERS ( A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM) HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS, AHUJA CHAMBERS, NO.401, 4TH FLOOR, MADHAVNAGAR, KUMARAKRUPA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SH.B.ANAND, S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI CHETHAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI RANGE, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 2. SH.N.R. ANIL KUMAR DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 KIBBANAHALLI DIVISION, JANEERU BEAT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI DIVISION, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572125 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE INVESTIGATION IN FOC.NO.12/2016-17 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.05.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 2(7), 6(iv), 24, 24(a), 24(g), 24(gg), 62, 64A, 73(d), 81, 82B AND 109 OF KARNTAKA FOREST ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The second respondent lodged FIR with the Range Forest Officer, Chikkanayakanahalli Range, alleging that, the petitioner/accused are carrying on mining operations in a forest land. The Range Forester concerned registered the FIR in FOC No.12/2016-17 for the offences punishable under Sections 2(7), 6(iv), 24, 24(a), 24(g), 24(gg), 62, 64A, 73(d), 81, 82B and Section 109 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The registration of the FIR is impugned in this petition. - 3 - CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 2. Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner’s counsel submits that, the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused are non-cognizable, and the FIR was registered without obtaining an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. He further submits that the endorsement ‘permitted’ in the requisition is not an order as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRL.P.NO.101997/2019 [2019 SCC ONLINE KAR 2708]. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that, the petitioner/accused after encroaching the forest land were carrying on mining operations, and the same constitutes an offence alleged against them. Hence he submits that the allegation made in the FIR requires to be investigated, and at this stage, registration of FIR does not warrant any interference. - 4 - CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. A perusal of the requisition sent to the learned Magistrate indicate that, the learned Magistrate has endorsed ‘permitted’ on the requisition. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (supra) held that, the word without the order of the Magistrate appearing in sub-section(2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C., makes it clear that the Magistrate has to pass an order which means supported by reasons. Hence the word ‘permitted’ on the requisition submitted by the police does not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., and such an endorsement cannot be substituted with the order. Hence in the absence of valid order as specified under Section 155(2), the registration of FIR for the offences which are non cognizable stands vitiated. Hence I pass the following: - 5 - CRL.P No. 2962 of 2017 ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned FIR in FOC No.12/2016- 17 registered by the Range Forest Officer, Chikkanayakanahalli Range, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk is hereby quashed. Pending applications, if any, does not survive for consideration, in view of disposal of main matter. Sd/- JUDGE KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30