A Magistrate must consider evidence from investigative reports before taking cognizance of offenses to ensure legal proceedings are based on substantiated claims.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the instant misc. petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of case No.367/2013 pending in the Court of ACJM, Nathdwara.

2. The case emanates from an FIR No.284/2012 registered at P.S. Nathdwara in which after investigation a negative final report was submitted claiming that the allegations were false. The complainant made a protest upon which the learned Magistrate made his disagreement with the police report and issued cognizance for offence under Section 41 & 42 r/w Section 77 of the FOREST ACT and issued process against him vide order dated 22.06.2013.

3. The petitioners made a challenge by way of filing a criminal Revision No.13/2014, however, vide order dated 23.10.2017 the learned Court of Revision had dismissed the revision.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the orders under assail as well as the report submitted by the police.

5. Vide closure report dated 25.06.2012, the Investigating Officer had concluded that a neem tree situated in the western side of the agricultural field of tenant Harish had fallen on the earth which was removed by the JCB. The Investigating Officer did not noticed any sign of removal of neem tree at the site. The petitioners have their agricultural land at that area, there was no evidence to suggest that the neem tree was cut down by the petitioners. The evidence of independent witness Daulat Ram is relevant to mention that he was cultivating the fields since last twenty years and there was an old neem tree having hollow trunk which fall down suddenly. When the police officer went to the place they found the neem tree lying on the earth and there was no proof of cutting it. In my firm opinion the learned Magistrate ought to have been considered the finding of Investigating Officer while hearing on the protest petition. Having not done so indeed the learned Magistrate has erred in law, and therefore, the order taking cognizance dated 22.06.2013 is not sustainable. The learned Court of Revision has also failed to examine the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate and therefore both the orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. In view of the above, the instant misc. petition is allowed and both the orders dated 22.06.2013 passed by ACJM, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Case No.367/2013 and the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara in Criminal Revision No.13/14 are hereby quashed and set aside.

7. Stay petition stands disposed of.