Kabinderlal v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Applicant, seeking quashing of the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 414 of 2016, whereby cognizance was taken against the Applicant for offences under Sections 9, 39, 44, 49B, and 51 of the WildLife (Protection) Act, 1972.

2. The Applicant further seeks the quashing of the subsequent order dated 18.09.2018, whereby the discharge application moved under Section 239 CrPC was rejected, and also prays for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending against him in the said case.

Brief facts of the case are as follows; It is contended on behalf of the Applicant that the impugned cognizance order dated 22.10.2016 is patently without jurisdiction as it is in contravention of the mandatory requirement of Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which prescribes that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on the complaint of a specified officer. It is submitted that in the instant case, cognizance has been taken based on a Criminal Misc. Application No. 2013 of 2018, Kabinderlal Vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. police charge sheet and not on a complaint as envisaged under Section 55, and the officer who submitted the charge sheet was not shown to have been duly authorized under the said provision.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further submits that the bar under Section 362 CrPC was wrongly invoked by the learned Magistrate while rejecting the discharge application. It is argued that the Applicant was not seeking a review or recall of the cognizance order, but was instead asserting a jurisdictional objection based on statutory non-compliance, which ought to have been adjudicated on itsmerits.

5. It is further argued that the arrest and seizure were not in accordance with the mandatory procedure under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 100(4) CrPC, as no independent witnesses were called at the time of seizure and the Applicant was not produced before the Magistrate forthwith. These procedural lapses, it is contended, go to the root of the matter and render the entire proceedings vitiated.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the FIR was registered on credible information, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed disclosing sufficient material to proceed against the Applicant for offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It was contended that the learned Magistrate, after due application of mind, had validly taken cognizance of the matter and no procedural infirmity has been demonstrated, warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC.

7. In opposition to the application under Section 482 CrPC, learned Government Counselraised objections concerning the underlying seriousness of the offence.

8. He further highlighted that an average of four leopards are killed illegally every week, and that rampant poaching continues to pose a Criminal Misc. Application No. 2013 of 2018, Kabinderlal Vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. severe threat to the species' survival. In this context, learned A.G.A. submitted that mere procedural lapses, such as non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, should not lead to quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. He urged that the Court ought to weigh the broader environmental implications and the legislative intent behind stringent protection of Schedule I species when considering the relief sought.

9. It was further submitted that the objections based on Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act pertain to the mode of initiation and are a mixed question of fact and law, which can appropriately be raised and adjudicated during trial. The charge sheet was submitted by a competent police officer, and the cognizance order, having attained finality, cannot be re-agitated through a collateral challenge.

10. It was also urged that the Applicant’s plea regarding non- compliance with Section 55 has already been examined by the Trial Court in the discharge proceedings, and the application under Section 239 CrPC was rightly rejected.

11. It was lastly contended that the proceedings instituted against the Applicant are neither without jurisdiction nor constitute an abuse of process. The scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is limited, and no exceptional circumstance has been shown in the present case to warrant quashing of the cognizance order or the trial proceedings.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The principal contention urged by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal on 22.10.2016 is vitiated for want of a valid complaint as required under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

14. It is contended that the charge sheet filed by the police does not constitute a complaint within the meaning of the said provision, and Criminal Misc. Application No. 2013 of 2018, Kabinderlal Vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. that only a complaint lodged by an officer specifically authorized by law could have formed the valid basis for taking cognizance. It is further urged that the officer who submitted the charge sheet has not been shown to be duly authorized, and therefore the entire proceedings stand vitiated.

15. Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except upon a complaint filed by the Director of Wild Life Preservation, or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central or State Government.

16. The legal issue as to whether a report under Section 173 CrPC filed by a police officer can be treated as a complaint under the said provision has been conclusively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655. The Court held that where a police officer is duly authorized under the Act, the report submitted under Section 173 CrPC can be treated as a valid complaint and cognizance can be validly taken thereon.

17. In the present case, the contention raised by the Applicant regarding the absence of proper authorization stands neutralized in light of the Government Notification dated 30th April 1976, issued by the then Government of Uttar Pradesh, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The said notification specifically authorized all Deputy Superintendents of Police, Station House Officers, In-charges of police stations and outposts, as well as Assistant Inspectors posted therein, to lodge complaints under the Act.

18. It is pertinent to note that this notification, though issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in 1976, continues to have full force and effect in the State of Uttarakhand by virtue of Section 87 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. In the absence of any notification to Criminal Misc. Application No. 2013 of 2018, Kabinderlal Vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. the contrary or any repeal, the said Government Order is deemed to be operative in Uttarakhand as well.

19. Consequently, a charge sheet filed by such authorized police personnel is legally sustainable for the purpose of taking cognizance under Section 55. The Applicant has not placed any material on record to establish that the police officer who submitted the charge sheet in the present case did not fall within the scope of the said notification. Therefore, the argument regarding lack of authorization is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained.

20. The Applicant has also raised the issue of alleged procedural lapses during seizure and arrest, including non-compliance with Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that no independent witnesses were present during seizure, and that the accused was not produced before the Magistrate forthwith.

21. However, these are factual and evidentiary issues that cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Whether such procedural safeguards were breached, and if so, whether they materially prejudice the accused, are questions that must be adjudicated on the basis of oral and documentary evidence at trial. At this stage, it would be premature to conclude that the prosecution is vitiated on these grounds alone.

22. Moreover, the seriousness of the offence alleged cannot be overlooked. The 2022 leopard population estimation report released in February 2024, placed the total number of leopards in India at approximately 13,874 (ranging from 12,616 to 15,132). A leopard skin was recovered from the possession of the Applicant–accused and the Indian leopard (Panthera pardus Fusca) is classified as a vulnerable species on the IUCN Red List and is accorded the highest level of legal protection under Indian law. It is listed in Schedule I of the Wild Life Criminal Misc. Application No. 2013 of 2018, Kabinderlal Vs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J. (Protection) Act, 1972, which prohibits hunting or trade and attracts the maximum penalties prescribed under the law. In this context, the legislative intent behind stringent statutory provisions must be borne in mind. Procedural lapses, if any, must be tested against this broader background and cannot form the sole basis for quashing proceedings in a serious wildlife offence at the threshold.

23. It is trite law that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, and only in rare cases where the criminal proceedings are manifestly without jurisdiction or constitute an abuse of process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held that even where one or more ingredients of the offence are made out, the matter ought to proceed to trial. In the present case, the record discloses prima facie material to support the prosecution, and no exceptional circumstance is shown warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. The objections raised by the Applicant are capable of being adjudicated by the Trial Court during the course of trial, where evidence can be appreciated in its proper context. ORDER In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:04.07.2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No. 2013 of 2018, Kabinderlal Vs State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J.