FIR over alleged leopard killing quashed for violating Wildlife Protection Act’s mandatory complaint requirement; Gujarat HC permits fresh proceedings by authorised officer

On 29 March 2017, a leopard carcass was found near the gate of Sai Engineering Company in the Khogawadi area, near Makarlag, District Bhavnagar. Post-mortem examination conducted on 30 March 2017 allegedly revealed that the leopard died from injuries.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants, acting in concert, assaulted the leopard and subsequently concealed the act by tying one of its legs with a string entangled with an iron piece and leaving the carcass near the company gate. The Range Forest Officer, Ghogha, registered C.R. No. I-1 of 2017 under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 50(8), 50(9), 51, 52 and 58 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The applicants invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR. The application had abated as against Applicant Nos. 1 and 2.

Whether the FIR registered under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 could be sustained when no complaint, as contemplated by Section 55 of the Act, had been filed by an authorised person or authority.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR on the ground that the statutory restriction on taking cognizance rendered the proceedings legally unsustainable.

The Court applied Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act except upon a complaint filed by the Director of Wildlife Preservation, the Chief Wildlife Warden, or another officer duly authorised by the Central or State Government.

The Court relied on the meaning of “complaint” under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—and its equivalent, Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, 2023—as an allegation made to a Magistrate seeking action for an offence, expressly excluding a police report. It further applied the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent continuation of proceedings suffering from a fundamental statutory or jurisdictional defect.

The Court accepted the applicants’ contention that the FIR lodged by the Range Forest Officer was neither a complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act nor supported by material demonstrating the requisite authorisation. Since Section 55 permits cognizance only on the basis of a properly instituted complaint by a specified or authorised officer, a police FIR could not satisfy the statutory precondition.

The State’s representative was unable to dislodge the legal position emerging from the Coordinate Bench’s decision dated 5 August 2025. Consequently, irrespective of the factual allegations concerning the leopard’s death, the prosecution suffered from a foundational legal infirmity and lack of jurisdiction, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC without examination of the merits.

The Court clarified that the order would not prevent an authorised officer under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, from initiating or instituting appropriate proceedings in accordance with law on the basis of the material collected during the investigation.