Allowed

Fekan Mistri and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2023Cr.M.P./2239/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, after observing that the disputed land was covered under a settlement order in favor of the petitioners, making it a matter for civil title suit rather than criminal trial.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.F. Case No.129/2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 27.04.2015 is quashed.

Fekan Mistri and Ors. Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

1 Cr.M.P. No. 2239 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 2239 of 2015

¶4

Fekan Mistri 2. Munshi Mistri 3. Arun Mistri 4. Bijli Sao … Petitioners

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

¶9

04/01.12.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶10

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.F. Case No.129/2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 27.04.2015, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Daltonganj at Palamau.

¶11

Offence report was filed alleging therein that the informant who is Forest Guard along with other Forest Guards inspected the place of occurrence situated at Village Dhangardiha reserve forest being Plot No.584 whereby the Forest Guard found the offence true and also prepared the map. It was alleged that on the place of occurrence by the accused persons exceeding their limits, the accused persons have entered into the premises of reserved forest of eight acres and plough the said plot. It was further alleged that accused no.4 Bijli Sao of Village Dhangerdiha, P.S. Patan, District- Palamau has ploughed the plot by the tractor and at the time of verification by the Forest Guard, the accused persons did not turn up and in

¶12

¶13

Cr.M.P. No. 2239 of 2015

¶14

that view of the matter, it is stated that the accused persons have encroached the forest land illegally and the accused no.4 have ploughed the land by tractor, which attracts the penal provision of Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

¶15

Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the offence report, the subject matter was made of Khata No.60, Plot No.584 of Mouza Ghangerdiha, which was settled in the name of Faku Vishwakarma, Munshi Mistri in Settlement Case No.30/2007-08 by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Medininagar, District- Palamu dated 29.10.2008, contained in Annexure-2 of the petition. He submits that the petitioners have not encroached upon the forest land. He draws attention of the Court to the settlement order and rent receipt, contained in Annexures2 and 3 of the petition. He submits that the plot numbers are similar as mentioned in the offence report.

¶16

Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State submits that since in the forest area encroachment has been made, the case has been rightly registered.

¶17

It appears that the subject matter of the offence report is Khata No.60, Plot No.584 and Annexure-2 is the settlement order with regard to Plot Nos. 584/A and 585/A, which is in favour of the petitioners and rent receipt is also there with regard to Plot Nos. 584/A and 585/A, which are also in the name of the petitioners. In view of these documents, it appears that the if the petitioners were doing anything in their plots, nothing is on the record to suggest that the said plots were the forest land. If such dispute is there, the Department is required to file Title Suit which is settled principle of law.

¶18

3 Cr.M.P. No. 2239 of 2015

¶19

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.F. Case No.129/2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 27.04.2015, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Daltonganj at Palamau are quashed.

¶20

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶22

Ajay/

Fekan Mistri and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fekan Mistri and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Bikki Bhagat Vikky Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand

Arbind Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Munna Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Irfan Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Bikki Bhagat  Vikky Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand

Arbind Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Munna Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Irfan Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Bikki Bhagat Vikky Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand