Allowed

Polavarapu Malikharjuna Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2024Cr.M.P./1911/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, arrayed as accused in a coal transportation complaint only because he was C.M.D. of Central Coalfields Limited, sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court held no overt act was attributed to him personally and quashed the entire criminal proceeding including the Magistrate's summons order.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.276 of 2020 against petitioner, including order dated 23.09.2022, quashed; Cr.M.P. allowed.

Polavarapu Malikharjuna Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1911 of 2024

¶2

------

¶3

Polavarapu Malikharjuna Prasad, aged about 59 years, S/o Polavarapu J. Rao Residing at 59A-11/1, 2^nd Cross road, K. P.nagar, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna, Vj Polytechnic, Andhra Pradesh, P.O.Vj Polytechnic P.S.- Machavaram District- Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) PIN- 520008 … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Forest Range Officer, Pakur Forest Range, Pakur, PO+PS & … District- Pakur (Jharkhand) Opposite Parties

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Ms. Aprajita Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶10

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.276 of 2020 including the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Pakur whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Rule 18 of the Jharkhand Forest Produce (Regulation of Transportation) Rules, 2020 and directed for issuance of summons and the said case is now pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Pakur.

¶11

¶12

Cr. M.P. No.1911 of 2024

¶13

The brief facts of the case is that the Forest Range Officer, Pakur filed a complaint alleging therein that two trucks loaded with coal were passing through the forest area without the Forest Transit Permit Letter issued at the level of the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O). On the basis of the Crime Report and Prosecution Report, the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur found prima facie case inter alia against the petitioner who has been arrayed as an accused because he is the C.M.D of Central Coalfields Limited.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint are considered to be true in their entirety still no offence punishable under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Rule 18 of the Jharkhand Forest Produce (Regulation of Transportation) Rules, 2020 is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the two seized trucks loaded with coal, belong to P. K. Enterprises; with which the petitioner is in no way concerned nor the said trucks have any concern with the Central Coalfields Limited. It is next submitted that P. K. Enterprises is the purchaser of the coal from the Central Coalfields Limited and it is for the purchaser to obtain the Transit Permit Letter and not for the petitioner because the moment Central Coalfields Limited sells the coal, the responsibility of the Central Coalfields Limited in respect of the sold coal ceases. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶15

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits

¶16

¶17

Cr. M.P. No.1911 of 2024

¶18

that the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand by its letter to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (C.M.D), Central Coalfields Limited has intimated that coal in any form, is a forest produce and the forest produce transit fee is applicable on coal as per the provisions contained in Jharkhand Forest Produce (Regulation of Transportation) Rules, 2020 and as per the provisions contained in Jharkhand Forest Produce (Regulation of Transportation) Rules, 2020, the seized trucks were carrying coal which was mined from N K Area of Central Coalfields Limited in the district of Chatra. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶19

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only because he is the C.M.D. of the Central Coalfields Limited; even though no overt act has been attributed to him. Central Coalfields Limited itself has not been arrayed as an accused in this case. There is no material in the record to suggest that Central Coalfields Limited was to procure the Permission Letter from the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O).

¶20

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner against whom no specific allegation of indulging in any act, deed or things, in his personal capacity has been alleged, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.276 of 2020 including the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by

¶21

¶22

Cr. M.P. No.1911 of 2024

¶23

the learned S.D.J.M, Pakur, which is now pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Pakur, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

¶24

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.276 of 2020 including the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Pakur, which is now pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Pakur, as prayed for by the petitioner, is quashed and set aside.

¶25

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶27

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10^th of September, 2024 AFR/ Animesh

¶28

¶29

Cr. M.P. No.1911 of 2024

Polavarapu Malikharjuna Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polavarapu Malikharjuna Prasad 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

Shabnam Praveen Alias Shabnam Parveen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shekh Khalid Alias Shiekh Khalid Vs the State of Jharkhand

Supriya Sharma Vs Sulochana Sharma

Sheela Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Neelam Kujur Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.