IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Gulam Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4447/2021
Decided On : 15-11-2022
Forest Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 41/42 of the Forest Act - Section 155 of Cr.P.C. - Part II of Schedule-I of CrPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.72/2017 registered at Police Station, Bajju, District Bikaner for the offence under Section 41/42 of the Forest Act. The petitioner argued that the offences under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 are non-cognizable and the FIR could not have been registered without an order from the Magistrate. The Public Prosecutor argued that the police officer has the power to arrest and investigate such cases without a warrant. The court found that the registration of the FIR without an order of Magistrate was violative of the law and quashed the FIR and the order of taking cognizance by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registration of the FIR without an order of Magistrate was violative of Sub Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and quashed the FIR and the order of taking cognizance by the trial court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the registration of the FIR without an order of Magistrate for the offences under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and Part II of Schedule-I of CrPC to determine that the offences under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 are non-cognizable and the registration of the FIR without an order of Magistrate was violative of the law.
Final Decision: The criminal misc. petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed and set aside.
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor submit that the proposition in question is settled in Hasam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2254/2017, decided on 10.07.2017, judgment whereof reads as under:-
"1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing FIR No.72/2017 registered at Police Station, Bajju, District Bikaner for the offence under Section 41/42 of the Forest Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohan Ram @ Manaram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2016(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1144, wherein the following order had been passed:-
’This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1811/2015 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, District Barmer (hereinafter referred to as ’the trial court’) against the petitioner.
In the present case, the trial court vide order dated 19.11.2015 took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 41, 42/77 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1953’). Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 by the Head Constable Sujan Singh of the Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer on 11.10.2015. It is contended that the offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 are non-cognizable offence and as per the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer shall investigate into non-cognizable case without order of Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. It is argued that the FIR in the present case, could not have been registered because there was no order from the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. It is further argued that the trial court, without taking into consideration the above position of law, has illegally proceeded against the petitioner and has taken cognizance against him for the offences punishable under Sections 41, 42/77 of the Act of 1953 vide order dated 19.11.2015.
In support of above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Pintu Dey Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 9.4.2015 and Pappu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 304.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc. petition and has argued that as per the provisions of Section 64 of the the Act of 1953, any Police Officer has power to arrest any person without warrant against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been involved in any forest offence punishable with imprisonment for one month or upwords and, therefore, the police officer is also competent to register and investigate any FIR against any person in which the complaint is made for commission of offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act of 1953.
However, learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the punishment provided under Sections 42 and 77 of the Act of 1953 are less than 3 years, therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 42 and 77 of the Act of 1953 are non-cognizable offences.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
Sub-section (2) of section 155 of CrPC reads as under:
’(2) No police officer shall investigate a noncognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.’
Part-II of Schedule-I of CrPC reads as under:
’II - CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER LAWS
Offence | Cognizable or Non-Cognizable | Bailable or Non-Bailable | By what Court triable |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
If punishment with death, imprison | |||
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of a FIR for non-cognizable offences under the Forest Act without an order of Magistrate is violative of the law.
Non-cognizable offences require a magistrate's order for police investigation, and failure to obtain such an order renders the FIR invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a Magistrate's order for the registration of FIRs under non-cognizable forest offences, as mandated by Sub-Section (2) of Sectio....
Police lack authority to investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, making subsequent FIR registrations invalid and procedural lapses inherently illegal.
Non-cognizable offences under the Karnataka Police Act require prior permission from the Magistrate under Sec. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the investigation to be valid.
Police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, ensuring judicial oversight in such matters.
The registration of FIR under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant is impermissible and renders the proceedings void ab initio.
The court emphasized the importance of following the legal provisions for FIR registration and investigation, and highlighted the need to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of ....
Mandatory compliance with Section 155 of Cr.P.C. is crucial for police investigations of non-cognizable offences.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.