The Gujarat High Court set aside a 2017 FIR alleging the killing of a leopard, holding that the FIR could not stand because the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, requires a statutory complaint by an authorised officer, not a police report, before a court can take cognizance. The decision clarifies the scope of Section 55 and re-affirms the High Court’s inherent power under CrPC Section 482 to quash proceedings lacking jurisdiction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Ismailbhai Abdulbhai Shaikh (Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2) and others, sought the quashment of FIR C.R. No. I-1 of 2017 lodged with the Ghogha Range, District Bhavnagar, on the ground that the FIR was not a “complaint” as mandated by Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The FIR alleged that the petitioners, in connivance, inflicted fatal injuries on a leopard found near the gate of Sai Engineering Company, Makarlag, Khogawadi area.
Key Facts
- 29 Mar 2017: Carcass of a leopard discovered near Sai Engineering Company gate.
- 30 Mar 2017: Post-mortem confirmed death due to injuries.
- The petitioners were alleged to have tied one leg of the leopard with a string and an iron piece and left the body at the gate.
- The offence was registered by the Range Forest Officer, Ghogha, under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 50(8), 50(9), 51, 52 and 58 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
- 05 Aug 2025: Coordinate Bench decision in Special Criminal Application No. 77 of 2014 highlighted the statutory bar under Section 55.
- 20 Aug 2026: Judgment delivered by Justice P. M. Raval.
Procedural History
- 2017: FIR C.R. No. I-1 lodged with Ghogha Range.
- R/CR.MA/14202/2017: Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed seeking quashment under CrPC Section 482.
- The record shows that Cr.MA No. 14202/2017 was abated qua Applicant Nos. 1 & 2.
- Applicants relied on the Coordinate Bench’s observations in Special Criminal Application No. 77 of 2014.
- The State opposed the quashment, arguing the FIR was valid.
- The High Court heard arguments from Mr. S.P. Kotia (for Applicants Nos. 3-6) and Mr. Rohan Shah (for the State).
Parties' Positions
- Applicants: Contended that Section 55 requires a complaint filed by the Director of Wildlife Preservation, the Chief Wildlife Warden, or another duly authorised officer; no such complaint existed, rendering the FIR ultra vires.
- State: Maintained that the FIR was a proper police report and that the court should not interfere with the investigation.
Relief Sought
The petitioners prayed for the quashment and setting aside of FIR C.R. No. I-1 of 2017, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
