In a couple of applications filed before the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) registered for offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 50(8), 50(9), 51, 52, and 58 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Act), a Single Judge Bench of Justice P.M. Raval quashed and set aside the said FIR in reference to the applicants.
On 29-03-2017, a leopard’s carcass was found near the gate of Sai Engineering Company. Upon post-mortem, it was found that the leopard had died due to injuries that it had sustained. It was alleged that the applicants, in connivance with each other, inflicted blows on the leopard, resulting in its death. In order to conceal it, the applicants allegedly tied on of the leopard’s legs with a string entangled with an iron piece and left its body in front of the company’s gate. Hence, the Range Forest Officer registered the said offence against the applicants and others.
The applicants submitted that as per provisions of Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, there was a statutory bar against cognizance being taken by the Court unless a complaint, as mentioned in the said provision, if filed by the persons or authorities specified thereunder. It was contended that no such complaint had been filed in the present case and that the said FIR suffered from a legal infirmity as there was a clear lack of jurisdiction.
Referring to an order dated 05-08-2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Court stated that the FIR in question was neither a complaint, nor could it be termed as a complaint as contemplated under Section 55 of the Act, and that the same was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, it was stated that the present applications deserved favourable consideration without entering into the merits of the case.
The Court allowed the applications while quashing and setting aside the said FIR with reference to the present applicants. However, it was clarified by the Court that the authorized officer under the Act would not be precluded from initiating or instituting appropriate proceedings against the applicants.
