K Sreekant And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

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 in connection with C/3 Case No. 8 of 2015 including the order dated 17.08.2016 whereby cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act and Section 33 of Bihar Amendment Act, 1989 has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ghatshila.

¶13

The allegation against the petitioners is that on 10.04.2015 at about 11:00 am, the forest guard during the patrolling inside the protected forest, found the petitioners along with 40-50 labourers illegally digging the earth and was clearing of the forest for the purpose of

¶14

Cr.M.P. No.3729 of 2017

¶15

1

¶16

making construction of culvert and on seeing the forest guard the petitioners ran away and remained successful in fleeing away.

¶17

On the basis of the complaint, the case was instituted and after submission of the offence report, cognizance has been taken.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Choudhary vs. State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 1530 of 2014 dated 01.11.2021 wherein in the facts of that case as it became crystal clear that the petitioners of that case were doing public work under the order of the Department, during which the damage took place so the coordinate Bench was of the considered view that no offence is made out and quashed the order taking cognizance including the entire criminal proceeding in that case and submits that in this case also the construction work was going on behalf of M/s GVR Infra Project Limited by the order of the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division No.7, Galudih and in this respect learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-2 which is the letter issued by the executive engineer for construction of work. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that forest clearance has been accorded by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest cum Executive Director, Govt. of Jharkhand which has been marked Annexure-3. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners being employees of M/s. GVR Infra Project Limited has the right to use the forest land for purposes other than the forest. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶19

Cr.M.P. No.3729 of 2017

¶20

2

¶21

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer as made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 prohibits use of forest land for non-forest purposes and Section 3A of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 provides the penalty for the same. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that Annexure-2 does not show that the same anywhere relates to Annexure-3 nor the place of occurrence shows any road going through the forest area where the construction of culvert was made. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition; therefore, the same being without any merit be dismissed.

¶22

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 that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 , the relevant portion of which reads as under :-

¶23

“ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)

¶24

It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under

¶25

Section 482 Cr.P.C., a genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has

¶26

Cr.M.P. No.3729 of 2017

¶27

3

¶28

been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State

¶29

of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 .

¶30

Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act as amended by the Bihar Amendment by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 but the only defence of the petitioners is that they have been permitted by the Executive Engineer of Minor Distribution Division No.7, Galudih. As per Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 the use of forest land for non-forest purposes is prohibited. Section 3B of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 provides punishment for offences by authorities of any department also.

¶31

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the entire criminal proceeding, at this stage.

¶32

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶33

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶34

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 4^th September, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶35

Cr.M.P. No.3729 of 2017

¶36

4

K Sreekant And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Sreekant And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanya Basu Alias Taniy Basu Vs the State of Jharkhand

The Consultants Cooperative Housing Construction Society Limited Vs Smt Ram Sakhi Devi

Jyotish Chandra Alias J Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anisha Kumari Alias Muni Swansi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Lal Srivastava And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Omeo Kumar Bishwas Alias Dr Amiyo Kumar Biswas Vs the State of Jharkhand