- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2717 CRL.P No. 101703 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101703 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHIRAG M.P. S/O. K. E. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT. # 11, SHIVIKA ENCLAVE, SGS LAYOUT, 3RD CROSS, JP NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560076. 2. SRI. SUNIL KUMAR B.N. S/O. RUDRAPPA C. B., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT. ATTIGERE VILLAGE, TQ. DAVANAGERE, DIST. DAVANAGERE-577001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, HARAPANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583131. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 31.12.2021, FIR IN FOC CRIME NO.01/2021-22 AND ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES DATED 31.12.2021 UNDER SECTION 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 50 AND 51 OF THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972, IN PCR NO.01/2022 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.01/2022 PENDING BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.14 13:20:05 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2717 CRL.P No. 101703 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated in PCR No. 1/2022 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli, wherein cognizance has been taken for offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 50, and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1972”). 2. The genesis of the prosecution is a private complaint filed by the respondent-Regional Forest Officer (RFO) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that on 29.12.2021, in the land belonging to the petitioners, which abuts forest land, the petitioners/accused killed a leopard by strangulating it with clutch wire. Based on the said complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the complaint are contradictory to the Panchanama drawn at the spot. He contends that: • The Panchanama recorded on 29.12.2021 clearly states that the leopard died after getting entangled in a barbed wire fence, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2717 CRL.P No. 101703 of 2024 which was lawfully installed by the petitioners for protecting their agricultural land. • Contrary to the Panchanama, the respondent alleges that the leopard was strangulated using a clutch wire, an allegation not supported by any material evidence. • There is no mens rea (guilty intention) on the part of the petitioners to hunt or kill the leopard, which is an essential ingredient for an offence under Section 9 of the Act, 1972. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State opposes the petition, contending that the presence of a dead leopard in the petitioners’ land itself gives rise to a presumption of illegal hunting, and thus, the matter requires a full-fledged trial. 5. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, is a special enactment aimed at the protection and conservation of wild animals, and Section 9 of the Act, 1972, prohibits hunting of any wild animal listed in Schedules I to IV, except under the circumstances mentioned under Sections 11 and 12. 6. Hunting is defined under Section 2(16) of the Act, 1972, which includes: • Killing or poisoning of any wild animal. • Capturing, trapping, or baiting any wild animal. • Injuring or destroying any part of the body of a wild animal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2717 CRL.P No. 101703 of 2024 7. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.A. No. 715/2011 (disposed of on 15.03.2022) has categorically held that: • Mens rea (guilty intention) is an essential ingredient for proving an offence of hunting under Section 9 of the Act, 1972. • Mere presence of a dead wild animal in the vicinity of an individual’s property does not automatically establish criminal liability, unless there is direct evidence showing intent to hunt, kill, or capture the animal. 8. In the present case, theThe Panchanama drawn at the scene of the incident explicitly states that the leopard died after getting entangled in a barbed wire fence, which was lawfully erected by the petitioners for protecting their land. 9. There is no material evidence suggesting that the petitioners intentionally set up the fence to trap or kill the leopard. There is no eyewitness account, forensic evidence, or expert opinion to support the prosecution’s claim that the leopard was strangulated with a clutch wire. 10. In light of the above, the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Act, 1972, are conspicuously absent. The mere death of a leopard in the petitioners’ land, without any evidence of intentional hunting or trapping, does not constitute an offence under the Act. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2717 CRL.P No. 101703 of 2024 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], has held that criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where: • The allegations made in the FIR do not disclose the commission of an offence. • No prima facie case is made out against the accused. • The proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention or instituted to harass the accused. 12. In the instant case, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners, despite the absence of mens rea or any substantive evidence to prove intentional hunting, would be a gross abuse of the process of law. 13. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in PCR No. 1/2022 pending before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli, are hereby quashed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6