Dr Sharda Rani Vs the State of Jharkhand

( 2025:JHHC:35281 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 709 of 2024

Dr. Sharda Rani, aged about 58 years, Wife of Dayal Kumar Ishwar, R/o Q/No. 22, Sector 3-B, Bokaro, P.O.+P.S. –Bokaro Steel City, District –Bokaro, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

The District Forest Officer, Bokaro, P.O.+P.S. –Chas, District – Bokaro. …. Opp. Parties

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P.

¶11

By the Court:-

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer for quashing the cognizance order dated 11.09.2019 arising out of Complaint Petition (B.F.) Case No. 981 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and also to quash the subsequent proceedings thereto.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner on 27.07.2019 at 03:00 P.M. encroached the forest land by putting tin

¶15

sheets and raising pillars made of bricks and cement by

¶16

1

¶17

Cr.M.P. No.709 of 2024

¶18

( 2025:JHHC:35281 )

¶19

destroying the saplings. When the forest officials reached there, they were surrounded by the petitioner and the co-accused persons and were taken as hostage. On the basis of the prosecution report submitted by the forest officials, the learned S.D.J.M, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offence as already indicated above.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 4188 of 2019 and other allied cases dated 21.11.2022 that as the notification under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act was only for 30 years from 1958, so on the date of occurrence, the said notification was not in force, hence, no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the land in question is a raiyati land of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶21

The learned Addl. P.P. relying upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manik Chand Maheshwari @ Manik Chandra Maheswari @ Manak Chand Maheshwari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., dated 06.02.2023 in Cr.M.P. No. 512 of 2022 submits that therein the

¶22

Co-ordinate Bench has rejected the said prayer by observing

¶23

thus:-

¶24

<After the lapse of 30 years, neither the nature of the forest changes nor the nature of the land changes, what changes is the exercise of rights of the forest dwellers and the community to use the land for activities such as

¶25

2

¶26

Cr.M.P. No.709 of 2024

¶27

( 2025:JHHC:35281 )

¶28

collection of firewoods etc. which resumes after the expiration of the aforesaid period. Therefore, it is not tenable in the eyes of law to claim title or right to possession over a Government land which has been declared protected forest on the ground that the nature of the land or forest has changed after the expiration of 30 years.= (Emphasis supplied)

¶29

Therefore, it is submitted that merely because 30 years has elapsed since the notification, that does not confer the right to the petitioner to damage the tree or clear any forest area. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶30

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manik Chand Maheshwari @ Manik Chandra Maheswari @ Manak Chand Maheshwari Vs. The

¶31

State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra) that after a lapse of 30 years, no right is conferred upon any private person to clear the forest area and making any construction thereof, is the land retains the nature of it being a forest. Further, it has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that the map showing the demarcated forest land was signed by the FSO as well as the Divisional Forest Officer and the said land is demarcated forest land which has

¶32

been in continuous possession of the Forest Department. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the land is his raiyati land is at best a defence which the petitioner can raise at the time of his defence evidence, but certainly the same is not a ground to

¶33

3

¶34

Cr.M.P. No.709 of 2024

¶35

( 2025:JHHC:35281 )

¶36

quash the entire criminal proceeding as it is a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner cannot be considered in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors., reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 .

¶37

In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the cognizance order dated 11.09.2019 arising out of Complaint Petition (B.F.) Case No. 981 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the subsequent proceedings thereto, be quashed and aside.

¶38

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

¶39

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶40

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17^th November, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶41

Uploaded on 03/12/2025

¶42

4

¶43

Cr.M.P. No.709 of 2024

Dr Sharda Rani v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Sharda Rani 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

Gorakhnath Pandey Vs Bishndeo Pandey

Deepali Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeshwar Prasad Munshi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sharad Kumar Suman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhartendu Worah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhartendu Worah Vs the State of Jharkhand