Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Raju @ Rajesh S/o Mangilal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4421 of 2019
Decided on : 02-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 prohibits taking cognizance of an offence without a complaint filed by an authorized officer.
Headnote:
Wildlife Protection Act - Quashing of Preliminary Report - The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the preliminary report of an offence under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, emphasizing that the Act prohibits taking cognizance of an offence without a complaint filed by an authorized officer. The court clarified that the preliminary report is not an FIR and that the forest officials are required to file a complaint in the court after conducting an inquiry. The court held that the petition was premature as the stage of taking cognizance had not been reached, and therefore, dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner sought to quash the preliminary report of an offence under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the Act prohibits taking cognizance of an offence without a complaint filed by an authorized officer and clarified that the preliminary report is not an FIR.
Issues: The main issue was whether the preliminary report of an offence under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 could be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Act prohibits taking cognizance of an offence without a complaint filed by an authorized officer and clarified that the preliminary report is not an FIR.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit.
ORDER :
1. The instant Misc. Petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner Raju @ Rajesh seeking to assail the proceedings of the report No.367/2018 registered by the Regional Forest Officer, Sujangarh.
2. Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner has placed reliance on the order of this Court dated 28.08.2017 passed in Balram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1414/2008) and urges that the impugned report and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof are liable to be quashed on the basis of the above order because registration of an FIR is not permissible under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1972’) and cognizance of any offence under the Act of 1972 can only be taken on a complaint filed by any of the officers mentioned under Section 55 of the Act of 1972. He thus urges that the impugned Report No.367/2018 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta and urged that the petition itself is a premature and the stage of taking cognizance has not been reached and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta and have gone through the impugned report. Carefully perused the order of this Court dated 28.08.2017 passed in Balram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1414/2008).
4. Suffice it to say that the statutory provision i.e. Section 55 of the Act of 1972 prohibits taking of cognizance of an offence under the Act sans a complaint being made by any of the officers authorized under the provision to do so.
5. In the present case, the report which is assailed is simply a preliminary report of the offence being committed under the Act of 1972 and was recorded by the Regional Forest Officer concerned. The follow up procedure would have to be conducted by the competent officer of the Forest Department who, on the basis of the material so collected during inquiry, would be at liberty to file a complaint in the Court concerned. The case has so far not reached the stage of cognizance.
6. In the case of Balram & Anr. relied upon by Shri Gupta, the court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the complaint had been lodged by a private person.
7. In any event, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner has wrongly portrayed in the Misc. Petition that the report No.367/2018 is a first information report. Bare perusal of the report indicates that it is simply a summary report of an offence being committed under the Act of 1972. As a matter of fact, the correct factual and legal position is that in cases under the Act of 1972, the officers of the Forest Department do not register any FIR. Only a preliminary report is registered and thereafter, on the basis of the material collected during inquiry thereof, a complaint is presented in the court concerned. In the case at hand, the preliminary offence report has been registered by the Regional Forest Officer, Sujangarh, who definitely is a person authorised under Section 55 of the Act of 1972. It may be reiterated that the requirement of Section 55 of the Act of 1972 is that the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence under the Act of 1972, unless the complaint is filed by an officer authorised under the statute. Needless to say that the stage of taking cognizance is yet to reach in the case at hand and it can safely be presumed that the forest officials will comply with the requirement of the statute before initiating the prosecution against the petitioner. Manifestly, thus, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Balram is of no avail to the petitioner.
8. As an upshot of the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned proceedings while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Misc. petition is dis
