Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Punit Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2013 with Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2013 with Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Forest Conservation Rules - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Forest Act, 1927, Sections 33, 41, 42, 52, 63 - Forest Conservation Act, Section 3(a) and 3(b)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings related to alleged offences under the Indian Forest Act and the Forest Conservation Act. The petitioners argued that the land in question was purchased and utilized by the company, and the complaints were not lodged by authorized personnel as required by the Forest Conservation Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had purchased the land and that the company was not made an accused in the case. It also noted that the complaints were not lodged by authorized personnel as required by the Forest Conservation Rules. The court held that the entire criminal proceedings in all three cases were malicious and amounted to an abuse of the process of law, and therefore, quashed the proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the criminal proceedings under the Indian Forest Act and the Forest Conservation Act, the requirement of complaints to be lodged by authorized personnel, and the vicarious liability of company officials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Forest Conservation Rules, which required complaints to be lodged by authorized personnel. The court also considered the vicarious liability of company officials and the requirement for circumspection in quashing criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the entire criminal proceedings in all three cases, finding them to be malicious and an abuse of the process of law.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. N.K. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the cases and Mr. Tarun Kumar, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.Ps. in respective cases for the State.
2. In all these three petitions, common questions of fact and law are involved that’s why all these Cr.M.Ps. are being heard together with the consent of the parties.
3. In Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2013, the challenge is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G.O. Case No. 12 of 2013 registered on 12.01.2013 by the Forest Area Officer, Chandil, for the alleged offence under Sections 33, 63 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.
4. In Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2013, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G.O. Case No. 214 of 2012 lodged on 13.12.2012 by the Forest Area Officer, Chandil, for the alleged offence under Sections 33, 41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.
5. In Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Chandil Chowka P.S. Case No. 05 of 2013 lodged on 11.01.2013 by the Area Forest Officer, corresponding to G.R. No. 44 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 447, 419, 420, 201, 120-B, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 33, 42 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Forest Conservation Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.
6. It appears that the allegations made in two G.Os. Cases, which are the subject matters in Cr.M.P. Nos. 161 of 2013 and 158 of 2013 respectively, was the basis of registering the FIR, which is the subject matter in Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013. As such, the prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:-
7. The First Information Report was lodged on 10.01.2013 on the basis of the offence report submitted by one Sunil Kumar Das, Forest Guard, vide Letter No.170 dated 10.01.2013, wherein it was mentioned that the Forest Guard along with another Officer of the Forest Department while carrying out patrolling in the Protected Forest, it was found that the Petitioner no. 2 G.M. of M/s. Narsingh Ispat Limited, Khunti Chowka with two other staff members of the company along with various labours were removing concrete slab from the Musribera Protected Forest with an intent to remove the encroachment and when asked it was informed that since the area falls within forest land, the concrete slab was being removed. However, the slabs were not allowed to seize in terms of a telephonic call received from the Proprietor of the Company.
It was further sought to be alleged that some fresh cut bushes were kept aside and the same has been seized.
On 11.01.2013 slab has been seized. the aforesaid Act is an offence under Section 33 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
8. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2013 is the General Manager of M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited. He further submits that in Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2013 the petitioner No. 1 is the Director and petitioner No. 2 is General Manager of the said company. He also submits that in Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2013, the petitioners are the Director and General Manager respectively of the said company.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the company namely M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited purchased a piece of land situated at Mauza Musribera, P.S. Chandil, Thana No. 176, Halka No. 9, Khata No. 169 Plot No. 1211 by the registered sale deed from M/s B.R.G.D. Sponge Iron and Pvt. Limited and also from Sri Shyam Sundar Agarwal. He submits that all the sale deeds have been annexed as Annexure-2 series in all these cases. He further submits that the said pieces of land are duly mutated in the name of respective sellers and rent receipts have
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for complaints under the Forest Conservation Rules to be lodged by authorized personnel, and the limitation of vicarious liability ....
The court quashed criminal proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, ruling that the land in question is raiyati land and not part of a protected forest, preventing abuse of process.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of a criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of the Court if no offence could be made out against the accu....
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
The court applied the legal provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the commission of cogni....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
