Allowed

Virendra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC15 Apr 2015Cr.M.P./1186/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, holding that the prosecution was illegal as it contradicted a previous order by this Court permitting mining operations on the specific land.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 15.7.2003 taking cognizance for the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and the entire criminal proceeding in B.F. Case No.21 of 2003.

Virendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

Cr.M.P. No.1186 of 2003

¶2

(Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.)

¶3

Virendra Kumar Singh …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shri Devendra Kumar Mishra, Forest Guard, Topchanchi, Dhanbad. …. Opposite Parties -------For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Sen, Mr. S.P. Roy, Mr. Arun Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Mr. Awanikant Prasad

¶4

¶5

PRESENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA

¶6

----- Reserved on : 11.3.2015 Pronounced on : 15.4.2015

¶7

H.C. Mishra, J:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶8

This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner, in connection with B.F. Case No.21 of 2003, including the order dated 15.7.2003 passed therein, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

¶9

The Offence report and the prosecution report, have been brought on record to show that on 3.11.1999, in Matigora protected forest, remaining works of construction of some houses were being done on plot No.5. When the forest guard tried to prevent the said construction, he was informed that the construction was being done upon instructions of the officials of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. With this allegation, the case was instituted, which was registered as B.F. Case No.21 of 2003, and by order dated 15.7.2003, on the basis of the prosecution report, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, took cognizance for the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act against the petitioner, being the then Chief General Manager, of Matigora Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (herein after referred to as BCCL), in Block-II Area, Baghmara, District, Dhanbad.

¶10

-2-

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that the entire land bearing Plot No.5 situated at Matigora, P.S. Baghmara, District, Dhanbad, was leased in favour of the Ex-Colliery owners for construction of the buildings. Areas of Dhowarha, Tramuaya etc., were acquired for the mining purposes making the same as part and parcel of Matigora Colliery, but upon nationalization of the coal mines, the right, title etc., in relation to Matigora Coal Mines, as also the land transferred, were vested with the Central Government, vis-a-vis, the BCCL, free from all encumbrances. Some claims were made by some Dhobis and Pandeys , that they were in possession of about 23.85 acres of land as raiyats, but BCCL also purchased the said land from those persons by registered sale deeds. However, the said land was notified as “Protected Forest” under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, by notification dated 23^rd September 1964, followed by notifications dated 19^th December 1964, issued under Sections 30 and 31 of the said Act, and the BCCL was restrained by the forest department from doing the non-forestry work over the said land. Aggrieved thereby, BCCL filed CWJC No.2360 of 1999(R), which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 31.1.2001, whereby the respondent State was restrained from disturbing or interfering with the functioning of the BCCL and its officials, with regard to coal mining and work related to coal mines in its Block -II Area, over Plot No.5 of mauza Matigora, P.S. Bhagmara, District Dhanbad, till a declaration was obtained against it from a competent Court of law or any proceeding was initiated by the competent authority / Court of competent jurisdiction against the said Company. The order dated 31.1.2001 passed by this Court in CWJC No.2360 of 1999 (R) has been brought on record as Annexure – 7 to this application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 31.1.2001 passed by this Court in CWJC No.2360 of 1999 (R),

¶13

-3-

¶14

no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner for carrying out the work of coal mining and the works related to coal mines, and the cognizance taken against the petitioner under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in B.F. Case No.21 of 2003, are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, being in teeth of the order passed by this Court, as mentioned above.

¶15

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the prayer and has submitted that law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and others , reported in AIR 1997 SC 1228, that for doing the non-forest activities in the protected forest, prior permission of the Central Government is necessary and accordingly, the offence is made out against the petitioner.

¶16

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that once this Court has permitted the BCCL to carry out its mining operations and the works related to the coal mines in Block-II Area, over plot No.5 of mauza Matigora, P.S, Bhagmara, Dhanbad, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner, and lodging of the prosecution case is clearly in teeth of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. In my considered view, the same cannot be allowed to be continued.

¶17

In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in B.F. Case No.21 of 2003, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act against the petitioner, including the entire criminal proceeding in the said case, are hereby, quashed. This application is accordingly, allowed.

¶18

(H. C. Mishra, J)

¶19

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 15^th of April, 2015 N.A.F.R./ R. Kumar

Virendra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Firoz Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Anuj Guria Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kalim Sheikh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

MD Anwar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

S.H.A. Kazmi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

S.L.Soni And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.