i liii I IIGI I cot ‘Ri 01: KARN’\ lAKA (‘IRCt 11 131 NCI I A I 1)1 IARWAI) DATI:!) [IllS I iii 3oH l)AY 01: 5j) j I:\IIWR 2011 13L1ORI II IL I 10N131L MR. .11 ‘SI WI ANANI) I3YRARIl)1)Y CRIMINAl. P1. liii ( )N No.8 10 1 2009 Bli \\‘l N: I. Sri.S.K.Modi S o.Iate (i.1 ..Modi Aged about 58 ears. Director. M s. S.G.M.Companv. Modi Bhavan, I lospet Road, Alipura. Be11ar 2. Sri .Manish ( iupta S o. Ramesh Kumar Gupta Aged about 40 \ears. Assistant Manager. M s. S.C .ME ompany . Modi 13ha an. I lospet Road. Alipura. ReIlar\ 3. Sri .Yuvaraj Kadad i S o. I )oreraja Aged about 41 ears. General Manager ( Mines). M s. S.G.M.Compan\ . Modi I3havan. 11 ospet Road. A Ii pura. Bet Iar 1. Sri .11 Rainaehandra S oil. I3eemashena Rao Aged about 39 ears. Modi Bha an. I lospel Road. A lipura. I3e11ar Petitioners 13’. Shri (i.K.I liregoudar. br M.M.S’. am\ . Ad’. oeate.) ANI) I. I he Slate of’ Karnataka. Rep. b its Special Public Prosecutor. 11 igh Court o I Karnataka. Dhar ad. 2 1 he Raie 1 orest Oluicer. 13ellar /one. RcIlar\ 3. Ihe Sub—Inspector of Police (I .av & Order). Rural Police Station. 13e1 lar\ 1o n. 13e1 lar I )i strict. Respondents H\ Shri K .B ,Adh\ apak. Additional ( O\ ernineiit Ad\ ocate. This Criminal Petition is bled under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the 11 R in F.O.C.No. 13 2009-10 dated 13.11.2009 on the flle of the AddI. C’i i I Judge (Jr.1)n.) and JNICC. Bellar . s ide Anne\ure—l and also all other proceedings pursuant thereto. etc... [his petition coming on br flnal hearing this da\ . the Cuur! made the bollow uig: ORI)ER I leard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned ,\dditional Go ernmenl. Ad\ ocate. 2. It is noticed that the Cicis and circumstances pertaining to the present p ition are identical as to the facts and circumstaiices raised in Criminal Petition No.88’ 200) and connected Criminal Petition \o.9 I I 2009. disposed ol h\ an order dated 242.2() 1 I I here is W di splite in this regard and ha\ ing I urther regard to the Lid that the said petition as disposed of IN bo ing the ohser\ alions of a I)i\ ision Hench in Writ Petition \o. I -FOP 2009 disposed ol on 25.6.2009. Ihe reasoning assigned therein ould appl to the present case as eli and therefore it is a case \\ hich oueht not to ha e been referred for in estigation. 1 en if it could be stated that Section 62—A empo ers the Range I (west ( )flicer to in\ esligaic a cognizahle offence and also bx authori ing a competent ofPcer flr in estigation of a non cognitabie offence as \ elI, hut could ha\ e investigate in the capacity of an o fleer in charge of a Police Station and his Forest Di ision being a Police Station. the discretion to reftr in estigation is iih the Magistrate I his (ourt is o I the opinion that the present case is an ideal example v here the “i n est igali on” ought not to have been perni itted flr more than one reason to be carried out b\ the Range Forest ( )fficer. 3. Accordingly, the petition is allo\\ ed. I lie proceedings before the Additional Ci il .Tudge and .1i\IFC. l3ellar) . in case No.I ()C 1 3 2009— 1 () dated 13. 11 .2009. are hereb\ quashed. Sd! JUDGE M rk/