AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Learned counsel Ms. Sitara for Sri. T.A. Karumbaiah appearing for the petitioners submits that qua the other accused in the same proceeding, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings and this Court following the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench has also quashed the proceedings. The same reads as follows:
“The petitioner in this petition calls in question the proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli in C.C.No.2082/2012 arising out of Crime No.150/2011.
Out of the very same crime number, Criminal Petition No.6982/2014 had been filed before this Court. This Court, by its order dated 21.03.2019, 3 has allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the charge sheet in Crime No.150/2011.
The petitioner is accused No.20 in the said proceedings and the proceedings are quashed insofar as accused Nos.8,11, 15, 17 and 19. Therefore, the proceedings insofar as it concerns the petitioner also would stand quashed by following the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6982/2014, wherein this Court has held as follows:
"7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
Fish rearing by itself is not an offence under Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules. However, as there are specific allegations that, for the purpose of rearing fish, chicken and mutton waste are thrown in the open ponds and surroundings are littered with waste, attracting birds which create a threat or danger for the aircrafts, these allegations prima facie attract the ingredients of offence under Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules. However, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, there is 4 absolutely no material whatsoever to show that the petitioners herein are indulging either fish rearing or dumping chicken and mutton waste in open ponds so as to attract birds flying in the area or that they are involved in littering the surroundings. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioners, except the further statement of the complainant, there is no other material to show that the petitioners herein are engaged in fish rearing activity either at Razakpalya or in Budansabpalya. On the other hand, the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33488/2011 and connected matters indicate that the petitioners themselves had submitted a representation to the Assistant Director of Fisheries to take action against illegal fish farming at various ponds in Bagalur Tank and surrounding areas. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Budansabpalya and Razakpalya fall within Bagalur Tank area. There seems to be some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners themselves had complained against the illegal activities that were carried out in the surrounding area, in the absence of clinching evidence to show that the petitioners were indulging in the very same activities, in my view, 5 initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners cannot be sustained. As held in Bhajan Lal’s case, where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court. As the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable material in proof of involvement of the petitioners in the alleged activities, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is wholly illegal, baseless and abuse of the process of Court and cannot be allowed to be continued. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
Petition is allowed. The charge sheet in Cr.No.150/2011 for the offences punishable under Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 is quashed only insofar as the petitioners herein namely accused Nos.8, 11, 15, 17 and 19 are concerned."
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The charge sheet in Crime No.150/2011 for offence punishable under Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 is quashed only insofar as petitioner - accused No.20 is concerned.”
The learned HCGP would not dispute the position and accept the fact that qua the other accused, the proceedings are quashed.
In that light, the petition deserves to succeed. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings in C.C. No.2082/2012 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli is quashed qua the petitioners.