The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a land dispute involving a claim of being a bonafide purchaser, absence of objection from the relevant authority, and absence of re-notification of the land as a forest land after 30 years, the dispute of right, title, and interest should be decided by the competent civil court, and criminal proceedings cannot be fastened in such a situation.

JUDGMENT :

Inspite of repeated calls, nobody responded on behalf of the O.P. No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and State are present.

2. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 04.09.2012 passed in connection with B.F. Case No. 19 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class at Bokaro. 4. The F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that on 20.07.2012 on a confidential information at about 1.00 P.M. the informant alongwith witnesses proceeded towards plot no. 2562, Thana No. 91, where they found that this petitioner along with 15 persons are erecting well in the forest area. It is alleged that petitioner has tried to erect well over the land in the Thana No. 91, Plot no. 2562 of 44 decimals areas and as such has committed offence under section 33 and 63 of Indian Forest Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of land in question and he has purchased the land from Prafula Rajawar by sale deed dated 10.06.2009 vide Annexure-2 to the main petition. He further submits that the petitioner applied for mutation before the concerned State authority on 04.07.2009 thereupon report was called for by Circle Officer, Chas and report was submitted on 13.01.2010 as annexure-3. He further submits that after receiving the report from the Office concern, no objection was filed by the Forest Department and the office concern, thereafter the Circle Officer by order dated 30.12.2009 mutated the land situated in Mouza 91 khata no. 134, plot no. 2562 area 0.16 acre and plot no. 2562 area 2.50 acre totaling area of 2.66 acre in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that correction slip of the land in question was issued in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is going on depositing the rent to the state authority. He further submits that all of a sudden the present case has been filed and the learned court has taken cognizance. He further submits that last notification is of the year, 1958 and there is no statement that said land has been re-notified as a Forest land after 30 years of the notification. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied in the case of “Brajesh Kumar Ray Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in 2005 (3) JCR 464 wherein para 11 to 14 it has been held as under:

“11. It is informed that Title Appeal No. 14 of 1999, preferred against the order, passed in the Title Suit No. 7 of 1997, having been allowed, the members of the Samiti have preferred Second Appeal No. 182 of 2002, which is pending before this Court. In the meantime, cognizance of the offence having been taken in BF Case Nos. 17 of 1999 and 32 of 1999, petitioners of Cr. MP No. 771 of 2003 and 772 of 2003 were taken into custody. Thereafter, they filed petitions for discharge, which have been rejected, as stated above.

12. It is informed that Title Appeal No. 14 of 1999 was allowed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bokaro on 12th October, 2002 against which Second Appeal is pending before this Court. In the meantime, one SLP (C) No. 21304 of 2001 was preferred wherein leave was granted and the case was registered as Appeal No. 8210 of 2002. The Supreme Court by its order dated 5th December, 2002 disposed of the said appeal with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession, title and construction. Second Appeal No. 182 of 2002, preferred before this Court, has been admitted on the question "whether the appellate Court has committed error of law in setting aside and reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court on irrelevant considerations ignoring the material evidence, such as, Ext.12. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the counsel for the State. All this merely shows tha