JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prabhash Kumar and Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey and Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State.

2. In all these petitions, common question of facts and laws are involved and that is why, all these petitions are being heard together with consent of the parties.

3. The prayer has been made in Cr.M.P. No. 1338 of 2014 for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 27.06.2013 including the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G(F)-198/12 dated 29.03.2012 corresponding to TR-1389/13, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. The prayer has been made in Cr.M.P. No. 1339 of 2014 for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 27.06.2013 including the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G(F)-197/12 dated 29.03.2012 corresponding to TR-1390/13, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. The prayer has been made in Cr.M.P. No. 1502 of 2014 for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 27.06.2013 including the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G(F)-197/12 dated 29.03.2012 corresponding to TR-1390/13, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh and the prayer has been made in Cr.M.P. No. 1834 of 2014 for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 27.06.2013 including the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G(F)-198/12 dated 29.03.2012 corresponding to TR-1389/13, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh.

4. In all these cases, offence report was filed by the Forest Guard alleging therein that the Forest Guard along with his colleague was travelling in the forest area where they found that electric poles were installed and wiring were done by the petitioners. On further enquiry with the local police, it came to knowledge that DVC and L&T had done work in about 7 KM reserve forest.

5. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said erection of electricity wire was being made pursuant to the permission granted by the Central Government, State Government and on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, the Forest Department has also granted permission for erection of electricity wire, which are on the record as Annexures-2 to 10. He submits that in this background, the work order was being carried out by DVC and DVC has entrusted the work to L&T and that is why the L&T was working there. He further submits that in spite of the said permission, the offence report has been filed which is contrary to the materials on record. He submits that moreover the Forest Guard is not competent person to lodge such report in view of Section 50 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. He put much emphasis on Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (3A) of the said Section. By way of inviting attention of the Court to Section 55 of the said Act, he submits that the manner of cognizance of offence has been described therein. On this ground, he submits that the order taking cognizance is bad in law.

6. Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners adopted the argument of Mr. Prabhash Kumar and he has supplemented the argument by referring Section 55 of the said Act and submits that the cognizance has been taken without following the procedure prescribed in Section 55 of the said Act. Both the counsel have sought to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submit that the learned court has taken cognizance on the offence report filed by the Forest Guard. They further submit that what are the offences, that can be decided at the time of trial and at this stage, this Court may not quash the entire criminal proceedings.

8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record including the offence report and finds that admit