The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 55 of the Act, 1972, only authorized officers mentioned in the section are allowed to file a complaint for offences under the Act, and the court can take cognizance only upon such complaint.

JUDGMENT

Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This Criminal Misc. Application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the entire subsequent proceedings as well as the summoning order dated 08.07.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No.4088 of 2013, State vs. Tilka and others.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an FIR was registered on 24.12.2009 against the present applicants and four other co-accused persons on the basis of a written report lodged by the respondent No.2, then Forest Ranger, Khanpur, Range-Roorkee, District Haridwar, alleging therein that on 23.12.2009, when the Officers and employees of the Forest Department were on routine patrolling, at about 9 p.m., they reached village Harjora and saw that in the house of Tilka, co-accused, meat of Wild Pig was being under the process of cooking and at that place present applicants along with Mal Chand, co-accused, were sitting there. The recovery memo was prepared. Other co-accused persons attacked the officers and employees of the Forest Department. The FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 332, 342, 353 and 427 of the I.P.C. and Section 9/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted. The learned Magistrate took cognizance in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 332, 342, 353 and 427 of the I.P.C. and Section 9/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1972') and issued summons to the applicants and co-accused persons.

3. Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that he will argue only on this legal ground that the FIR cannot be lodged in the light of Section 55 of the Act, 1972.

5. At this stage, it is necessary to notice the provision of Section 55 of the Act, 1972. The provision of Section 55 of the Act, 1972 is to the following effect : -

"55. Cognizance of offences.-No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act on the complaint of any person other than-

(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or

(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A; or

(ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or

(ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or

(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government; or

(bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38J; or

(c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.

6. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before any court subordinate to it. Such power can be exercised to secure ends of Justice, to prevent abuse of process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case.

7. The inherent powers of the Court can be invoked in three situations indicated in Section 482 of the Code :

(i) in order to give effect to an order passed under the Code, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of process of the Court, and

(iii) to secure the ends of Justice. Such powers should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice.

8. In State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors, (1977) 2