Allowed¶11

Gyaneshwar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 May 2025NA528/17962/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S. 528 BNSS quashing application allowed; charge-sheet and cognizance order quashed for failure to specify offence sections and accused summoned; sections 4/10 Indian Forest Act — no offence provision; Case Crime No. 0735 of 2019; Case No. 2995 of 2019; P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur; Judicial Magistrate Tilhar; injury to green tree on applicants' own plot; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:90649; Order Date 27.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; charge-sheet no. 625/2019 dated 29.11.2019, summoning/cognizance order dated 20.12.2019 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 2995 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 0735 of 2019 (sections 4/10, Indian Forest Act, P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur) set aside. ¶11

Gyaneshwar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90649

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17962 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Gyaneshwar Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shivam Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned charge-sheet no. 625/2019 dated 29.11.2019, summoning/cognizance order dated 20.12.2019 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 2995 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 0735 of 2019, under sections 4/10 of Indian Forest Act, Police Station-Tilhar, District-Shahjahanpur pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur as well as to stay the further proceedings of abovementioned case.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is hardly any offence made in pursuance to sections 4/10 of Indian Forest Act, since sections which is mentioned in the FIR, whereupon detailed investigation has been conducted and chargesheet has been preferred, the same are not relating to any offence and subsequently not in consonance with the narration of the FIR as well as the chargesheet which has been submitted by concerned investigating officer. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that implication of the applicants is only on the basis of disturbing one green tree available at the outer boundary of his own plot which is being used by the applicants for agricultural purposes and at the time of moving of tractor, the same has been little injured.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA for the State although opposed the prayer as made in the application, but submitted that there is no offence in respect of sections 4/10 of Indian Forest Act, since both the sections are not speaking about any offence whereas notification of the land as well as the cultivation which will be provided to the concerned villagers have been dealt in sections 4/10 of Indian Forest Act.

¶10

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that at the time of taking cognizance, learned court concerned has not mentioned neither sections nor the name who has been summoned in pursuance to which section, which relates to some offence and as such proceeding arising out of Case No. 2995 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 0735 of 2019, under sections 4/10 of Indian Forest Act which includes chargesheet no. 625/2019 dated 29.11.2019 and summoning/cognizance order dated 20.12.2019 are hereby setaside.

¶11

In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, the instant application stands allowed accordingly.

¶12

Order Date :- 27.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gyaneshwar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyaneshwar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgesh Kumar Jaisawal vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Aditya @ Vikram vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Gayatri Stone Workers through Proprietor Mr Amit Sinha Alias Ashu Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Bachcha Lal Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another