The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to be sparingly and cautiously exercised to prevent abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The court's role in quashing criminal proceedings is limited, and the power should not be used in a routine manner.

ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, J.

1. Heard Shri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. Instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred with the prayer for setting aside the impugned order no. 2788/62-3-2007-137RI/05 dated 21.6.2007 passed by opposite party no. 3 i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Engineering Services, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and further directing the opposite parties not to proceed on the basis of impugned order in relation to case crime no. 416 of 1999 under section 420, 423, 120B and 511 IPC, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.

3. According to the petition, petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in Rural Engineering Department, Badaun. Some persons were trying to get the lease of the land concerned to the Gramsabha Pasgawn, Bisalpur, executed in their favour belonging to scheduled Tribes community. Leases were cancelled by the Collector, Pilibhit vide order dated 29.5.1993. The said order was challenged before the learned Commissioner in Revision No. 308 of 1993, Om Prakash v. State and 36 other related matters. The said revision was allowed on 25.01.1994 and the order of cancellation of lease dated 29.5.1993 was set aside by the learned Commissioner, Bareilly. The learned Commissioner referred the matter to the Board of Revenue for reference. Board of Revenue after hearing the parties, decided the reference upholding the judgment and order dated 25.1.1994 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly. State Government filed a Writ Petition No. 3252 of 1997 (M/S) before this Court challenging the orders of the Board of Revenue as well as the Commissioner, Bareilly on the ground that authorities below have not considered the fact that the land was not fit for cultivation as it was in the shape of forest. The said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.07.1997 on two counts. Firstly; it was filed highly belated. Secondly; it was held that the Board of Revenue has rightly taken the view that if the land is of the forest department, then the lease itself is void otherwise it is valid. Special Leave Petition No. 7363 of 1998, State v. Rambharosey and others was preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.07.1997 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition before Hon'ble the Apex Court, which was dismissed on 20.11.1998.

4. Some Lessees have executed Power of Attorney of some plot in question in favour of the petitioner on 28.6.1995, 20.10.1995 and 4.7.1996, which were withdrawn on 17.6.1997 by way of executing fresh Power of Attorney in the name of other persons. Petitioner was not having any intention to mischief with any government property. Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner remained in force with effect from 28.8.1995 to 16.6.1997 of plot no. 219-375/17 Gramsabha Pasgawn, Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit. This plot was neither recorded in the name of forest department nor notified by the Statement Government as a forest land. No benefit was given by the petitioner out of this plot.

5. A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner by Inspector, Bisalpur, U.P. Vigilance Department, Bareilly alleging that some complaints have been made. After inquiry, it was found that 37 leases were executed in favour of Ram Bharosey and others, who were not residents of village Pasgawn. Land in question was in the possession of forest department wherein valuable trees were standing. Land was not agricultural. Different persons were made Power of Attorney holders for cutting the trees and to sale the same. Petitioner was also made Power of Attorney holder by Raj Kumar, Babloo, Rudal Prasad, Siya Ram Maurya, Mirza Aslam Beg, petitioner Madan Pal Singh and others have conspired to illegally usurp the forest wood. Accordingly, FIR was lodged under sections 420, 423 and 120B IPC. No case is made out against the petitioner. Representation was made by the petitioner be