- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13569 CRL.P No. 2774 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2774 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI.RAJEEV S/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS STUDENT, RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS MAHALAKSHMI NAGARA GUBBI TOWN, TUMKURU - 572216 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.MADHU C S, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PATTANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.V.ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASHING THE COMPLAINT, FIR, CHARGE SHEET AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.7485/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, SIRA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN, TO PREVENT THE ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT AND TO SECURE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13569 CRL.P No. 2774 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The learned counsel’s submission on the office objection is accepted. The office objection is overruled. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Trial Court taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and Section 9 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Patanayakanahalli Police Station lodged a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the aforementioned offences, alleging that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, participated in hunting rabbits and deer. It is further alleged that one deer, which was shot, was not traced, and the gun purportedly used for hunting, belonging to one Shridhar, was seized. 4. The petitioner has been implicated as Accused No.6 solely based on the confession statements of the co- accused, who allegedly stated that the petitioner accompanied them at the time of the incident. In the absence of any corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, the continuation of criminal proceedings based solely on such confession statements is impermissible under the law. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13569 CRL.P No. 2774 of 2025 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 6. The petitioner has been implicated as Accused No.6 solely on the basis of the confession statements of the co-accused, who allegedly stated that the petitioner accompanied them during the hunting of rabbits and deer. Apart from the confession statements of the co-accused, there is no corroborative material to support the allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, prosecuting the petitioner for the aforementioned offences solely on the basis of the confession statements of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in law as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would constitute an abuse of the legal process. 7. Furthermore, Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 states that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by certain designated officers. Clause (b) of Section 55 specifies that the Chief Wildlife Warden or any other officer authorized in this regard by the State Government is competent to file a complaint before the Trial Court. 8. The Notification dated 26.08.2010 states that only a Police Officer above the rank of Sub-Inspector is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13569 CRL.P No. 2774 of 2025 authorized to file a complaint before the Trial Court concerning offences under the Wildlife Protection Act. In the present case, the complaint was filed by a Sub- Inspector, and therefore, the cognizance taken by the Trial Court based on such a complaint lacks authority. Consequently, the cognizance taken against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences stands vitiated. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed; ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7485/2021 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr Dvn) and JMFC Court, Sira, Tumakuru District in so far it relates to the petitioner - accused No.6 stands quashed; Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41