Disposed

Mohammad Imran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2024A482/5022/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the Allahabad High Court recorded arguments regarding the quashing of a criminal cognizance order under the Indian Forest Act. Observing that facts and law required consideration, the adjudicating Bench issued notice to respondents and stayed the proceedings and cognizance order until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Provisional stay on the criminal proceedings and the cognizance order until the next hearing date.

Mohammad Imran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5022 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Imran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash,Neeta Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kunwar Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Case No.141464/2023, Case Crime No.168/2017, under Section 4/10 of The Indian Forest Act, 1927, Police Station Banthra, Distrit Lucknow alongwith entire proceedings in pursuance thereof.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and hs been falsely implicated in a false, frivolous and vexatious case by the opposite party no.2 after a well orchestrated and concerted design to malign and destabilize the clean and impeccable image of the applicant solely with the objective to harass and humiliate the applicant and his family members with ulterior motive.

¶8

he further submits that the ingredients of Section 4/10 of The Indian Forest Act, 1927 are not attracted in the case of the applicant because as per the prosecution case, the applicant was cutting some trees of Sheesham and was taking wood without any authority or license. He further submits that the Sheesham trees were kept in the forest and the applicant was just passing the way but only to show good behavior, the police have falsely implicated the applicant and has lodged a false case against him. Section 4 and 10 of The Indian Forest Act, 1927 are being quoted hereunder:-

¶9

" 4. Notification by State Government.

¶10

(1)Whenever it has been decided to constitute any land a reserved forest, the [State Government] [[Substituted by A.O.1950, for "ProvincialGovernment".]] shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette

¶11

(a)declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserved forest;

¶12

(b)specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land; and

¶13

(c)appointing an officer (hereinafter called the Forest Settlement Officer) to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in or over any land comprised within such limits, or in or over any forest-produce, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter.

¶14

Explanation. For the purpose of clause (b), it shall be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries.

¶15

(2)The officer appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall ordinarily be a person not holding any forest-office except that of Forest Settlement Officer.

¶16

(3)Nothing in this section shall prevent the [State Government] [Substituted by A.O.1950, for "Provincial Government".] from appointing any number of officers not exceeding three, not more than one of whom shall be a person holding any forest-office except as aforesaid, to perform the duties of a Forest Settlement Officer under this Act.

¶17

10. Treatment of claims relating to practice of shifting cultivation.

¶18

(1)In the case of a claim relating to the practice of shifting cultivation, the Forest Settlement Officer shall record a statement setting forth the particulars of the claim and of any local rule or order under which the practice is allowed or regulated, and submit the statement to the [State Government] [[Substituted by A.O.1950, for[Provincial Government].]], together with his opinion as to whether the practice should be permitted or prohibited wholly or in part.

¶19

(2)On receipt of the statement and opinion, the [StateGovernment] [Substituted by A.O.1950, for "Provincial Government".] may make an order permitting or prohibiting the practice wholly or in part.

¶20

(3)If such practice is permitted wholly or in part, the Forest Settlement Officer may arrange for its exercise

¶21

(a)by altering the limits of the land under settlement so as to exclude land of sufficient extent, of a suitable kind, and in a locality reasonably convenient for the purposes of the claimants, or

¶22

(b)by causing certain portions of the land under settlement to be separately demarcated, and giving permission to the claimants to practice shifting cultivation therein under such conditions as he may prescribe.

¶23

(4)All arrangements made under sub-section (3) shall be subject to the previous sanction of the [State Government] [[Substitutedby A.O.1950, for "Provincial Government".]].

¶24

(5)The practice of shifting cultivation shall in all cases be deemed a privilege subject to control, restriction and abolition by the [State Government] [[Substituted by A.O.1950, for "Provincial Government".]]."

¶25

He further submits that in the F.I.R., some other Sections are mentioned whereas in the charge sheet another Sections are mentioned. Thus, he submits that the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet in a cursory manner without considering the material available to him and even the learned Magistrate had also taken cognizance in a routine manner without application of judicial mind. Thus, he prays for interim relief.

¶26

The matter requires consideration on the fact and law both.

¶27

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of the State i.e. opposite party

¶28

no.1.

¶29

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 through R.P.A.D. returnable at an early date.

¶30

Steps in this regard be taken within ten days from today.

¶31

Learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶32

Put up this case on 25.10.2024 before appropriate Bench.

¶33

Till the next date of listing the proceedings of Case No.141464/2023, Case Crime No.168/2017, under Section 4/10 of The Indian Forest Act, 1927, Police Station Banthra, Distrit Lucknow as well as effect and operation of cognizance order dated 19.12.2023 shall remain stayed in respect of the applicant.

¶34

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 Saurabh

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Imran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Imran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Richa Mishra vs Shri Surendra Tiwari, the Secy. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj and Another

Smt. Neelu vs Indrajeet Singh, Nagar Ayukt (Municipal Commissioner), Nagar Nigam, Lko.

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Lko

Maniram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kurindra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.