IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings against a Managing Partner without the Firm being accused lack specific allegations and cannot establish vicarious liability under penal law.

ORDER :

K. Manmadha Rao, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.3 of 2016 of Prathipadu P.S., East Godavari District.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the 4th respondent herein approached the 3rd respondent and gave a written complaint stating that Thotapally Forest was notified as Reserve Forest under G.O.BP.No.289, dated 23.12.1937 which is situated in Sy.No. 1 of Chintaluru village of Prathipadu Mandal. It is stated that ht petitioner Firm has obtained mining lease in Sy No.262 of Gajjanapudi village and alleged to have illegally excavated six lakh metric tones of laterite mineral by altering Forest Boundaries from the year 1997 to 2005 instead of mining in the allotted area. It is further stated that the District Collector, East Godavari and the District Forest Officer, Kakinada issued instructions to file a criminal case and on their instructions, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered as Crime No.3 of 2016 against the petitioner under Sections 447, 379 and 420 IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that he is innocent of the alleged offences with which he has been charged and is falsely implicated without there being any material to connect him with any of the alleged offences. The main grievance of the petitioner is that initiation of criminal prosecution without issuing any notice and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, after lapse of 10 years is illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that the 6th respondent lodged a complaint at the behest of the District Collector, who has submitted report to the Government while issuing G.O.Ms.No.119 stating that the area applied by the petitioner Firm do not fall in Reserve Forest area and the Survey number is registered in village accounts as "KONDA PORAMBOKE". There is an inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the complaint and absolutely there is no explanation in the complaint for filing of such an inordinate delay. Even though the petitioner was permitted to carry on quarry operations by the concerned authorities by following the procedure contemplated under law, without initiating any proceedings under the Forest Act for the alleged encroachment, launching of prosecution is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. This Court vide order dated 12.01.2016 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim direction that the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2016 of Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District, shall continue. However, the petitioner shall not be arrested in the meanwhile.

4. The 4th respondent has filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition inter alia contended that before the issue of mining lease either the Parameswari Minerals represented by the petitioner or Revenue Department and Mining Department officials had not taken up any joining inspection of the area proposed for mining lease with the Forest Department and also not obtained any clearance from the Forest Department. During the physical verification of the leased area as well as the adjoining forest area it is clearly found that the lessee did not excavate any mining material in the non forest area which was allotted to him by the Revenue and Mining Departments, but intentionally encroached into Reserve forest by altering the boundaries and excavated the mineral form the Thotapalli Reserve Forest area. It is further stated that the petitioner had not taken up any mining activity in the allotted area and intentionally carried out mining in the adjoining Thotapalli Reserve Forest area. Further the Parameswari Mineral was represented by mining partner Sri P.Ramakrishna in all its official proceedings on behalf of the company during the lease period. It is also submitted that during the recently enquiry only it is noticed that the illegal mining was carried out in the Forest area hence the delay occurred.

5. Heard Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government