The High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings for forest offences. The court held that at the early stages of investigation, supported by materials indicating complicity, quashing was not appropriate.
The petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012/10TH SRAVANA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 2442 of 2012 (A)
O.R.NO.03/12 OF VANDANPATHAL FOREST STATION OF ERUMELY RANGE
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:-
JOSE FRANCIS, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.FRANCIS, KALLAMMAKKAL HOUSE, PARATHANAM, KUTTIKKAL, KOTTAYAM PIN-686 514
BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:-
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESNETED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031
2. THE DEPUTY RANGER, VANDANPATHAL FOREST STATION, ERUMELY RANGE
PIN- 686 519
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
MJL
Crl.MC.No. 2442 of 2012 (A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE -I TRUE COPY OF SEIZURE REPORT IN O.R. NO. 03/12 OF VANDANPATHAL FOREST STATION, ERUMELY
ANNEXURE -II TRUE COPY OF REMAND REPORT FILED BEOFRE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY
ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF DUTY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE A.E.O., KANJIRAPALLY
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P A TO JUDGE
MJL
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.
Crl.M.C. NO. 2442 of 2012
Dated this the 01st day of August, 2012
ORDER
Petitioner is one among the accused, A2, in a crime involving forest offences, numbered as O.R. No.3/12 of Vandanpathal Forest Station of Erumely range, registered for the offences under Section 27(1)(e)(iii)(iv) and 84 of the Kerala Forest Act. The crime so registered is now pending investigation. Petitioner has filed the above petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the 'Code', to quash the criminal proceedings contending that even the allegations set out in Annexure I occurrence and seizure report filed before the Magistrate nor Annexure II remand report with respect to some other accused arrested and produced, do not spell out anything to show the complicity of the petitioner in the offences imputed.
Crl.M.C. NO. 2442 of 2012
2
petitioner adverting to Section 27(1)(e)(iii)(iv) and 84 of the Kerala Forest Act with reference to the allegations imputed by the forest authority contended that the petitioner has been proceeded against as if he had abetted the commission of offences alleged in the marking of some trees situate in the reserve forest by some other accused persons. The allegations so imputed against the petitioner is totally bereft of any value or truth, and not supported by any material whatsoever, is the submission of the counsel to contend that his implication as an accused in the case is totally unjustifiable and warrants annulling by this court invoking its jurisdiction as an abuse of process of the court. Refuting and countering the submissions made as above learned Special Government Pleader for the Forest contended that the materials gathered by the investigating agency disclose of the complicity of the petitioner as well in the offences imputed and the investigation is only in the early stages. Having regard to the limited scope of enquiry under Section 482 of the Code and
Crl.M.C. NO. 2442 of 2012 3
also taking note forest offences imputed of cannot at all be viewed lightly as any condonation of such offences would result in deprivation and denundation of forest wealth which is to be preserved zealously for the posterity, I find on the facts and circumstances presented in the case this is not a fit case where the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this court can be resorted to especially where investigation of the crime registered is only at the early stages.
Petition is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.
DMR /-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether quashing of criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction is appropriate when the investigation is at the early stages and complicity is indicated by materials.
Whether allegations of abetment in forest offences warrant dismissal of the motion to quash.
Whether the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to undermine the investigation of forest offences.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
JOSE FRANCIS
THE STATE OF KERALA
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
