The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the bona fide nature of the actions of forest officers and the scope of exercising inherent power under Section 482 of CRPC to prevent abuse of process of the court and secure the ends of justice.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. The petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 363/2013 by which offences under Sections 447, 427, 379, 147, 148 RPC dated 14.12.2013 has been registered against the petitioners including Assistant Conservator of Forest, Range Officer and other officials of the Forest Department numbering seven.

2. The petitioners filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining Romesh Singh and Chanchal Singh from interfering into the peaceful possession of the Forest Department over the suit land. The petitioners have annexed a copy of the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by learned 1st Additional Munsiff Forest Magistrate, Jammu in civil suit filed by the State against Chanchal Singh-respondent No. 2 in this petition and one Romesh Singh. Vide order dated 16.12.2013 defendants have been temporarily restrained from interfering in the land measuring 672 Kanal 13 Marlas under Khasra No. 792 situated in village Ban Tehsil and District Jammu.

3. It appears that Chanchal Singh had obtained Nishandai of the land from Naib Tehsildar, Nagrota and Patwari Halqa had demarcated the land on 11.12.2013, however, in an appeal, this order was set aside by the Dy. Commissioner Jammu vide his order dated 16.12.2013 with the following observations:

“Therefore keeping in view the facts mentioned above; it has been established that demarcation is bad in the eye of law as it has been conducted in absence of necessary party and not signed by the Naib Tehsildar concern as required under PSGA, hence is set aside. Naib Tehsildar Nagrota is directed to conduct demarcation personally thereby fixing a suitable date in presence of both the parties.”

4. The short and the only question involved in this petition is whether the Forest Magistrate was justified in directing registration of the case against the petitioners who are employees of the Forest Department. It appears that Section 42 of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, which prohibits taking of cognizance of any offence against the Forest Officer was not considered by the Magistrate. This section reads as under:

“42. Forest officers to be public servants:

(1) No suit or criminal proceeding or other legal proceeding shall be initiated against any public servant for anything done by him in good faith under this Act.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by a Forest Officer while acting or purporting to act ill the discharge of his official duty except with the previous sanction of the Government.

Indemnity for act done in good faith.- No suit shall lie against any public servant for anything done by him in good faith under this Act.”

5. Before directing registration of the case against the employees of Forest Department, the Magistrate ought to have enquired whether the action of the petitioners was bonafide and also in good faith and in discharge of their official duty. There is always a chance of misdirection and unnecessary harassment. Though in this case, the petitioners were saved from avoidable consequences by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2013 which reads as under:

“Meanwhile, petitioners in connection with the case, FIR No. 363/2013 shall not be taken into custody. However, petitioners to cooperate with the investigating agency.”

6. The nature of the dispute is civil and since the State has filed a civil suit in which respondent No. 2 has been restrained and there could have no occasion for the Forest Magistrate to direct registration of the case. The direction to register the case of theft and rioting is bad because in the civil case accused respondent No. 2 has been restrained from interfering in the possession of the Forest Department. The petitioners were preventing encroachment of forest land which is their legitimate duty. Since the land is recorded in the possession of the Forest Department the demarcation should have been made in the presence of the of