The quashing of criminal proceedings is inappropriate when prima facie offences are disclosed, necessitating a trial for proper adjudication.

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the license holder issued by the authorized signatory coastal aquaculture authority, Government of India to culture SPF Litopanaeus vannamei (prawn) in Nadukuppam Village comprised in Survey No.662/1A, 1B, 2, 671, 402/1, 405/3. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into lease agreement with one Sankar S/o. Elumalai, on 22.03.2018 and the lessee is carrying on the shrimp farm activity in the above said place from the month of March, 2018. The lessee, viz., the said Sankar is strictly followed the guidelines of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority. He further submitted that on 24.01.2019, the Forest Official came to his farm and by spade cut the shrimp farm cannels and thereby caused damage to the shrimp ponds and the water were flown from the farm. It is clear encroachment on the private land and caused mischief damaging the shrimp farm cannels. Therefore, the petitioner's lessee viz., Sankar lodged a complaint before the Marakkanam Police Station and the case has been registered in Crime No. 40 of 2019 as against the forest officials, for the offences under S.447, S.427 and S.430 of IPC. The petitioner's lessee lodged complaint on 24.01.2019 at about 20.30 hours. On the same day, the forest officials lodged complaint alleging that the petitioner's shrimp farm emanating wastage water, which is flow in the forest land in Survey No.682. On the said complaint FIR has been registered in Crime No.5 of 2019 for the offences under S.26(f) of the Forest Act , 1882 r/w S.28(A)2 2(16)(a) 9 S.39(3)(c) and S.51 of Wild Life Protection Act 1972 as against the petitioner. Thereafter, the second respondent filed charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance for the offences under S.26(f) of the Forest Act , 1882 r/w S.28(A)2 2(16)(a) 9 S.39(3)(c) and S.51 of 1972 in C.C.No.24 of 2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam.
2.1. He further submitted that the offences are not at all made out as against the petitioner, since the petitioner leased out the said shrimp farm and he is no way connected with the shrimp farm. Further he submitted that no offence has been made out as against the petitioner under S.29(f) of Forest Act 1882, since there is no allegation of hunting, shooting, fishing or poisoning of water has taken place in this case. Further he submitted that the offence under S.28(A)2 2(16)(a) 9 S.39(3)(c) of are also not at all made out. There is no killing or poisoning of wild animal and destroy or damage the government property. Without considering the above facts and circumstances, the learned Magistrate mechanically taken cognizance for the above said offences and issued summons to the petitioner. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire proceedings.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the license has been issued in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner only running the shrimp farm and only for business purpose, the lease deed executed in favour of one Sankar, as such the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for the offences charged against him. He further submitted that all the points raised by the petitioner are liable to be tested before the trial Court during trial. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.

4. Heard Mr.Prabakaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Ad