Dismissed

Naresh Kr Mahto Alias Naresh Kumar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2023Cr.M.P./864/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that allegations of forest encroachment constitute an offence under the Indian Forest Act and non-availability of title or lack of locus standi are matters for trial, not grounds to quash.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing Criminal Proceeding No. 56 of 2020 was dismissed as being without merit, noting that defense issues cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

Naresh Kr Mahto Alias Naresh Kumar Mahto Vs the… — Environment and Pollution | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.864 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 864 of 2022

¶4

Naresh Kr. Mahto @ Naresh Kumar Mahto, aged about 30 years, son of Dhirendra Nath Mahto, resident of Village- Kandra, P.O.- Kura, P.S.Pindrajora, Dist.- Bokaro .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Division Forest Officer Bokaro, Forest Department at Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, Dist.- Bokaro

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Addl. P.P.

¶12

By the Court:-

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. (B.F.) Case No.56 of 2020 including order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2020 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bokaro now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bokaro.

¶15

The allegation against the petitioner is that the forest official found some labourers indulging in construction of wall over the forest land and on seeing the forest officials, they fled away. It is further alleged that the forest officials on enquiry found that the construction of the wall over the forest land was being done on the instruction of the petitioner.

¶16

¶17

Cr.M.P. No.864 of 2022

¶18

It is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that the continuance of the criminal proceeding is abuse of process of Court as no offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted by Mr. Tiwari that a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 3 of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 vide case no.3 of 2020 and in reply to the said notice, the petitioner has given in writing that he is no way related to the place of occurrence- plot number being plot no.5196 and the petitioner does not claim any right or possession over the said plot no.5196. It is next submitted that in the notification made under Section 29 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the entry and extent of right of Government and private persons in or over the forest land, waste land comprising the said notification have not yet been enquired into. It is then submitted by Mr. Tiwari that even if the allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true still no offence is made out against the petitioner. Mr. Tiwari next submits that the petitioner is residing in plot no.5216 which is adjacent to plot no.5196. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. (B.F.) Case No.56 of 2020 including order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2020 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bokaro be quashed.

¶19

Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Special P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. (B.F.) Case No.56 of 2020 including order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2020 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bokaro. It is next submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that since the

¶20

¶21

Cr.M.P. No.864 of 2022

¶22

petitioner did not claim any right, title or interest over the place of occurrence plot no.5196, he has no locus standi nor he is any way affected if the entry and extent of the right of the government and of the private parties over the said land bearing plot no.5196 are not being decided. It is then submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of digging the earth and making wall over the forest land thereby damaging the trees and also break up and clears the forest land. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is made out. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the grounds raised by the petitioner for quashing the FIR at best can constitute the defence of the petitioner which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that this petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶23

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh

¶24

Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 that the Hon’ble Court could not embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or not as to that would be the function of the trial court.

¶25

Now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner did not claim right, title and interest over the place of occurrence land bearing plot no.5196 but the allegation against the petitioner is that he

¶26

¶27

Cr.M.P. No.864 of 2022

¶28

encroached upon that land, dug earth and constructed wall and cleared the forest land for such construction which constitute the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. So if at all the petitioner has not done the offence alleged, he can raise the same as his defence during the trial but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this nascent stage.

¶29

Accordingly, this petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶30

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶31

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16^th March, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Naresh Kr Mahto Alias Naresh Kumar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kr Mahto Alias Naresh Kumar Mahto 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

Chandi Charan Chakravorty Vs Rasik Manjhi

Rajesh Jaiswal Vs State of Jharkhand through C B I

Samsher Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhadur Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anshu Akansha Alias Anshu Akanchha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jaffar Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand