Allowed

Rekha Kumari Alias Beuty Kumari Alias Beuty Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2023Cr.M.P./1177/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against her for alleged encroachment on forest land. The Court observed that coordinate benches had previously determined the land was raiyati land, not protected forest. Holding further proceedings as an abuse of the process of court, the criminal prosecution was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 601 of 2018 and the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2019 under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were quashed and set aside

Rekha Kumari Alias Beuty Kumari Alias Beuty… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.1177 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1177 of 2020

¶4

Rekha Kumari @ Beuty Kumari @ Buty Sharma @ Beeuty Kumari, aged about 28 years, daughter of Sri Suresh Sharma (wrongly written in the complaint case as Gopal Sharma), resident of Village –Narayani Pakauri, P.O. –Phulwaria, P.S. –Phulwaria, District –Gopalganj, at present residing at ITI More, P.O. –Chas, P.S. –Pindrajora, District –Bokaro.

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro, Divisional Forest Office at Kamaldih, P.O. & P.S. –Chas, Distirct –Bokaro

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 601 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2019 under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989), pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bokaro.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that on 16.03.2014, the forest officer during the course of patrolling when reached over plot no. 370,

¶17

¶18

Cr.M.P. No.1177 of 2020

¶19

they saw that some persons were constructing houses upon encroaching the forest land bearing plot no. 370 which is a notified protected forest land. Upon seeing the forest officials, the persons who were involved in constructing the wall of the house fled away.

¶20

It is submitted by Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is made out as plot no. 370 is a raiyati land having an area of 10 decimals and the petitioner is residing with her family members in the house constructed in the said plot. It is then submitted that earlier, similar cases lodged by the Forest Department have been quashed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 479 of 2009 and Cr.M.P. No. 1165 of 2009. It is then submitted that in Cr.M.P. No. 771 of 2003, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.02.2005 has observed that continuation of the criminal proceeding in respect of plot no. 370 will amount to abuse of process of Court. It is next submitted that besides the above, in Cr.M.P. No. 563 of 2018 dated 12.07.2019 also a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the case in respect of plot no. 370 by observing thus in para -7

¶21

“7. Heard. In view of the documents and the order dated 28.11.1964 passed by Forest Settlement Officer in Settlement Case No. 55 of 1963-64 and the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 33 of 2000 as well as Title Appeal No. 17 of 2012, it is abundantly clear that Plot No. 370 is the raiyati land of the petitioners. It is not a protected forest land. Considering the unimpeachable documents

¶22

¶23

Cr.M.P. No.1177 of 2020

¶24

available on record, in my considered opinion, the continuation of further proceeding in connection Complaint Case No. 1160 of 2017 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro will be an exercise in futility resulting in abuse of the process of court.”

¶25

Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 601 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2019 under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989), pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bokaro be quashed.

¶26

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance as prayed for but do not dispute that the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance have been quashed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in respect of plot no. 370 involved in this case in several cases.

¶27

Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that as has been observed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Cr. M.P. No.563 of 2018 that plot no. 370 is a raiyati land of the petitioner and it is not a protected forest area land.

¶28

Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of this Criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the Court. Thus for the ends of justice, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 601 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2019

¶29

¶30

Cr.M.P. No.1177 of 2020

¶31

under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989), pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bokaro is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶33

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶34

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3^rd July, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Rekha Kumari Alias Beuty Kumari Alias Beuty Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Kumari Alias Beuty Kumari Alias Beuty Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

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 Salim Mansuri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinod Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Ray Alias Rohit Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Somari Devi And Ors. Vs Mahadeo Oraon And Ors.

Hridesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Asmaul Haque Alias MD Asmaul Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand