IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

------

Nepal @ Deepak Prasad Mehta, aged about 32 years, Son of Bhaginath Mahto, resident of Village- Suji, P.O.- Padma, P.S.-

Barhi, District- Hazaribagh.

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, Advocate

Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- I.A. No.16850 of 2025

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory

application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition.

Since the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken

up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being

infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

1. Heard the parties

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with

the prayer to quash the Offence Report dated 14.02.2011 as well as the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.01.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with G (F) Case No. 78 of 2011 involving the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and the said case is now pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner indulged in an illegal mining of stone inside the protected forest area bearing Khata No.01, Plot No. 832, Thana No. 37 in 50 decimals of land. It is the case of the complainant that the total area was 21.90 acres but out of which

50 decimals was affected by the said illegal mining.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the Annexure-2, kept at page No. 36 to 74 of the brief that the same is the copy of the certified copy of the mining lease for minor minerals executed between the Governor of the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and the father of the petitioner; thereby, 2.1 acres of land out the said Plot No. 832 has been given to the father of the petitioner on lease for the period of ten years starting from 11th July, 2004. Therefore, since mining was done in the area which was leased out to the father of the petitioner for the purpose of mining; so, no offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand does not dispute the genuineness of the Annexure-2 which is the copy of the certified copy of the lease deed executed between the Governor of the Jharkhand and the father of the petitioner.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is the admitted case of the respondent- State that the respondent- State itself has granted lease for mining of minor minerals inside the protected forest area; so, the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the Offence Report dated 14.02.2011 as well as the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.01.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with G (F) Case No. 78 of 2011, be quashed and set aside.

7. Accordingly, the Offence Report dated 14.02.2011 as well as the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.01.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with G (F) Case No. 78 of 2011, is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition