IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS).

CRR NO.1088 of 2023

PARVEJ ANAM

VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, Adv.,

Mr. Sayantan Hazra, Adv.,

Ms. Rituparna Ghosh, Adv.,

Mr. Sourav Sardar, Adv.

For the O.P. NO.1 : Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor,

Ms. Rituparna De Ghose, Adv.,

Mr. Bikram Mitra, Adv.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kusal Kumar Mukherjee, Adv.

Last heard on : 03-12-2025 Judgement on : 03-12-2025 Uploaded on : 05.12.2025

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J. :-

1. This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner is for quashing of the FIR and the proceeding thereof being A.C.G.R. No.5093 of 2022 arising out of Haridevpur Police Station Case No.345 of 2022 dated 12-11-2022 under Section 11 of the West Bengal Trees (Protections and Conservation in Non Forest Areas) Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, Alipore.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Executive Engineer (Civil), Parks and Squares Department, Kolkata Municipal Corporation before the Officer-in-Charge, Haridevpur Police Station, a case has been initiated against the present petitioner when no direct evidence is there against him. He has been false implicated and all the allegations levelled against him are false and concocted. That apart, there is procedural lacuna for which this FIR is not maintainable on the face of it.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in Section 12 of West Bengal Act X of 2006, that is, the West Bengal Trees (Protection and Conservation in Non Forest Areas) Act, 2006, it is specifically mentioned no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the State Government or such officer or authority as may be authorized by the State Government by order in writing in this behalf. No such order can be found before lodging of the complaint and, therefore, this prosecution case cannot be proceeded with. That apart, in terms of the Act X of 2006, for violation of any offence committed therein, the punishment is only up to one year with fine. Therefore, pursuant to Section

155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 174(2) BNSS, no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without an order of the Magistrate having power to try the said case or commit the case for trial. In this case, no such sanction was obtained and, therefore, this proceeding is liable to be quashed.

4. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of Section 3(3)

of Act X of 2006, the definition of “feeling of tree” does not consider cutting of the branches as happened in this case. In this case, the complaint lodged before the police officer where it is said that cutting of some branches of different sizes at different places devoid permission of departmental sanction of the concerned authority, does not come under the purview of such provision of Act X of 2006.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in (Harilal Shaw Vs. State of West Bengal) and another1 decision reported in (Badal Adhikary & Ors. Vs. Swapan Adhikary & Anr.), 2001 C.Cr.L.R.(Cal) 97 in order to substantiate that if a mandatory provision of law is not complied with, then the act complained of has to be struck down.

6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 raises objection and submits that after compliance of the procedure, the complainant being the Executive Engineer (Civil), Parks and Square Department, KMC, lodged the said complaint as he received the information or complaint from the

1 1985 (I) CHN 250

Secretary of the Cooperative Housing Society. He also submits that the investigation is at a very nascent stage.

7. The learned prosecution, on the other hand, submits that in