( 1 ) THE five petitioners are residents of Pittivanipalli Village in chittamuru Mandal of Nellore District. They seek a writ of mandamus to quash crime No. 28 of 1990 on the file of chittamuru Police Station, on the ground that the FIR does not disclose any ingredients of Section 379 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 ( ipc for brevity) and also on the ground that the alleged offence has been compounded under Section 59 (1) of the A. P. Forest Act, 1967 ( the Act ).

( 2 ) THE facts in brief may be noticed. All the petitioners are related. They claim to be working with one pachigarla Ramanaiah, who is dealing in charcoal. One Pulla Reddy, Sarpanch of mallam Village appears to have made a representation to the District Collector, nellore alleging that one P. Ramanaiah cut trees of Juli Flora (Karra Tumma) in the lands classified as assessed waste poramboke. In that connection, the Mandal Revenue officer (M. R. O.), Chittamuru, sent up a complaint to the first respondent namely, station House Officer, P. S. , Chittamuru, who registered a case in Crime No. 28 of 1990 under Section 379 of the IPC. The petitioners state that P. Ramanaiah who is accused no. 1 in Crime No. 28 of 1990 obtained licence for felling trees in the patta land and converting the same into charcoal. It is alleged that out of 1250 bags of charcoal obtained by burning the Juli Flora trees, 45 bags of charcoal was derived by felling trees in Sy. No. 41 belonging to the government. The Forest Range Officer referred the matter to the M. R. O. , Chittamuru who sent a report to the effect that the said ramanaiah cut the trees in Sy. No. 41 by mistake as the land comprised in Sy. No. 41 is adjacent to the patta land owned by him. The M. R. O. also recommended for compounding the offence in respect of 45 bags of charcoal. Accordingly, the second respondent, namely, the Divisional Forest officer, Nellore, compounded the offence by levying compounding fee of Rs. 8,325/ -. The amount was paid and the charcoal bags were released to Ramanaiah. The petitioners also filed an application being Criminal petition No. 1792 of 1990 before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 ( cr. PC ) for quashing crime No. 28 of 1990 and the same was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE first respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the first respondent is not aware of the proceedings initiated by the forest Officials for compounding the forest offence. However, the investigation in Crime No. 28 of 1990 has been completed, which revealed that the petitioners committed theft by felling down trees in the Government land for conversion into charcoal without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority. It is also stated that Criminal Petition No. 1792 of 1990 was dismissed by this Court. The writ petition is also opposed on the ground that it is not maintainable.

( 4 ) MR. Bharath, learned Counsel representing Mr. C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, raised three contentions. Firstly, he would submit that the FIR in Crime No. 28 of 1990 does not disclose commission of any offence under Section 379 of the IPC. Secondly, he would submit that the second respondent has compounded the offence under section 59 (1) of the Act and, therefore, in accordance with Section 59 (2) of the act, the petitioners stand exonerated of all the contraventions and offences. Thirdly, he would submit that the criminal petition was dismissed as premature and, therefore, it is not a bar to seek appropriate relief from this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in state of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 sc 604 = 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. These contentions are refuted by the learned government Pleader for Forests, Sri jayaprakash Babu.

( 5 ) THE submission that complaint lacks the ingredients of offence under Section 379 of the IPC cannot be countenanced