Prayer to quash criminal proceedings under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act was dismissed. The High Court held that since the prosecution report was not submitted, the order rejecting the pleabefore the lower court was well-reasoned and did not require interference.
Application for quashing stands disposed of without interference with the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 718 of 2010
Mahesh Sao, son of Sri Ramesh Sao, resient of House No. 95, village Narayanpur, P.O., P.S. Gomaria, District Saraikella-Kharsawan
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
--- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Sahay, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Tapas Raoy, A.P.P. ---
08/14.03.2018 Heard Mr. Shivam Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Tapas Raoy, learned A.P.P.
The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G. O. Case No. 76 of 2010 including the order dated 18.06.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M., Saraikella by which the prayer of the petitioner for dropping the proceeding has been rejected.
It appears that the petitioner being the driver of the vehicle was being proceeded against under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The prosecution report was never submitted and from the counter affidavit, it appears that the matter has been compromised after recovering compensation from the accused persons. On the basis of the compromise an application was preferred before the learned court below for dropping the proceeding which however was rejected vide impugned order dated 18.06.2010. It appears that till date the prosecution report has not been submitted and, therefore, the court is prevented from sufficient cause to proceed further in the matter.
The impugned order dated 18.06.2010 reveals that proper consideration has been made with respect to Sections 67 and 68 of the Cr.P.C. by holding that the proceeding cannot be dropped at this stage in absence of the prosecution report having been submitted by the Forest Department.
The impugned order dated 18.06.2010 being a well reasoned order does not require any interference and this application according, stands disposed off.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings initiated under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act where a compromise has been reached but the prosecution report remains unsubmitted.
Mahesh Sao
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
