[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rahul S/O Rajendra Deshmukh And Antoher vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 15 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14289-DB
J-apl1689.24.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1689 OF 2024
1. Rahul S/o. Rajendra Deshmukh,
Aged About 30 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Plot No.115, Priti Apartment,
Near Water Tank, Laxmi Nagar,
District: Nagpur.
2. Azar Akram Qurashi,
Aged About 30 years,
Occupation : Private,
R/o. Behind Ali Qureshi Mosque, Sadar,
Nagpur District : Nagpur. : APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. State Of Maharashtra
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Sitabuldi, Nagpur,
District : Nagpur.
2. Sanghdeep S/o. Gautam Fulekar,
Aged About 26 Years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Plot no. 29,
Behind Gajanan Maharaj Mandir,
Sudarshan Nagar, Hudkeshwar,
Nagpur, District: Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. S.R. Kadam, Advocate for Applicants.
Mrs. Sneha Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Mr. N.S. Jadhao, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J-apl1689.24.odt 2/5
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. By this application the applicant is seeking quashing of
the First Information Report in connection with Crime
No.1043/2024, registered under Section 21(1) of the Maharashtra
(Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975
(hereinafter referred to as, "the Act 1975")
3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged
by the informant on an allegations that the present applicant has
cut 3 palm trees, 2 wild sweetsop (Ramphal) trees and 1 mango
tree and various other trees without obtaining permission from the
appropriate authority and thereby violated the provisions under
Section 21(1) of the Act 1975 and thereby committed an offence.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
considering the punishment provided under Section 21 of the
Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees
Act, 1975 the offence is in the category of non-cognizable offence
for which the investigation after obtaining permission in terms of
Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is required. In
view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
5. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.1189/2017, dated
19th December, 2018.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1 and learned
counsel for the non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed for the same
and submitted that there is a clear violation of the provisions and
therefore, the offence is registered. No prima facie case is made
out, hence, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. Learned A.P.P. has not disputed the fact as far as the
provision is concerned. Section 21 of the Maharashtra (Urban
Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 makes the
offence of tree felling punishable with fine not less than Rs.1,000/-
which may extend upto Rs.1,00,000/-. In view of amendment and
also the imprisonment for a term not less than one week which may
extend upto one year. There is no other Section in the Act 1975
dealing with offences or its cognizance or procedure. Section 2(x)
explains that words and expression used in the Act 1975, but not
defined therein, are to be given meaning assigned to them in a
relevant fact. It, therefore, follows the prosecution for offences
under Section 21 has to be in consonance with Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973.
8. The Division Bench of this Court has dealt with this
aspect and observed that the controversy because impact of such
cognizance and investigation without necessary permission in terms
of Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is looked into by
this Court in the case of Mukesh Laxman Das Talreja Vs. Inspector
of Police, 2006(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 76, wherein learned Single
Judge of this Court in paragraph 6 observed as under :
"A perusal of the said section makes it clear
that the aforesaid provision of obtaining the
permission is a mandatory provision and if there is
non-compliance of the said provision, the
investigation which is carried out by the Police
Officer would be rendered illegal and void. In my
view, since the said provision has not been
followed, the entire investigation which is carried
out by the Police Officer will have to be set aside
on this ground alone."
9. In view of this observation the Division Bench in Writ
Petition 1189/2017 already held that the provision under Section
155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is required to be followed.
10. In view of this ruling and also the clear provision of
law it is apparent that the cognizance and investigation is
unsuspendable and non-est. In view of that, the application
deserves to be allowed. Consequently the F.I.R. in connection with
Crime No.1043/2024 and consequent proceeding arising out of the
same bearing Summary Criminal Case No.10813/2025 is hereby
quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicants,
namely, (1) Rahul S/o. Rajendra Deshmukh, (2) Azar Akram Qurashi .
11. The application is disposed of.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/12/2025 17:47:22
