Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Prakash Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 3110 of 2019
Chandra Prakash Pandey, aged about 60 years, son of S.K.
Pandey, resident of Plot No.107, Lohanchal, P.O. Bokaro Steel
City, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Division, Bokaro, P.O.
Bokaro Steel City, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro
3. Forest Range Officer, Chas Forest Division, P.O. Bokaro Steel
City, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro
4. Forester Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro, Chas, P.O. Bokaro
Steel City, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
---
06/23.11.2021 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner alongwith Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate.
2. Heard Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the State.
3. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed
challenging the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the
petitioner in connection with B.F. Case No.14 of 2012 (Forest)
including order dated 06.03.2019 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Bokaro whereby cognizance has been taken for
offence under Section 33/63 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar
Amendment Act, 1989) as against the petitioner which is said to
have been pending before the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the
impugned order taking cognizance and the entire criminal
proceedings submits that identical issue in connection with plot
no.1120, which is also the plot number involved in this case
alongwith other analogous plot numbers and criminal cases in
connection with those plot numbers were quashed by this
Court vide judgment passed in the case of R.S. Singh and
Others Vs. State of Jharkhand being Cr.M.P. No.1653 of 2009
and other analogous cases by holding that the dispute is
primarily in connection with right, title and interest over the
property. He submits that subsequently, the order was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 9884-9887/2010, but the SLP has been
dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2011. The learned counsel has
further submitted that the said judgment passed in Cr.M.P.
No.1653 of 2009 decided on 31.07.2010 has been subsequently
followed in other judgments including in the case of Cr.M.P.
No.917 of 2009 and other analogous cases decided on
11.04.2012. The learned counsel submits that identical issue is
involved in the present case.
5. The learned counsel has placed the prosecution report
wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner attempted to
encroach certain portion of plot no.1120 and demolished certain
pillars and on the basis of that allegation, the impugned order
of cognizance was passed. He has also referred to the Gazette
Notification dated 24.05.1958 which formed part of the
prosecution report and has specifically submitted that the plot
in question was included in the declaration of the land
including plot no. 1120 as protected forest and it was
specifically mentioned in the gazette notification that the nature
and extent of rights of Government and of private persons over
the forest land and waste lands comprised in the notification
have not yet been enquired into and the notification was issued
subject to all existing rights of individuals or communities.
6. The learned counsel submits that the original raiyat in
connection with the property involved in the present case had
filed a Title Suit bearing No.25 of 1996 and the said title suit
seeking a declaration of permanent occupancy raiyati right and
confirmation of possession was decreed in his favour, though
ex parte. The learned counsel has also submitted that an appeal
has been filed against the judgment and decree of the aforesaid
title suit, but the same is pending. The learned counsel has
submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter,
there can be no doubt that the right, title, interest, possession,
etc. in connection with the property involved in the present
criminal case is subject matter of consideration in civil dispute
between the parties. Learned counsel submits that a large
number of criminal cases in connection with various properties
were instituted which included portions of plot no.1120 and
such criminal cases have been quashed. He has referred to a
chart at page no.25, giving the details of such similar criminal
cases which have been quashed and submits that the aforesaid
fact regarding multiple cases having been filed under identical
circumstances have not been disputed by the State in the
counter-affidavit. The learned counsel further submits that the
present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment
passed by this Court which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and therefore, similar order may be passed in
the instant case.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on
the other hand, has opposed the prayer. However, she does not
dispute the fact that there was title dispute in connection with
the same plot number being Title Suit No.25 of 1996 and similar
cases as involved in the present one has been allowed by this
Court in the case of R.S. Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and other
analogous cases (supra) vide judgment dated 31.07.2010 and
SLP against which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 25.01.2011.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the prosecution report as well as the enclosure to
the prosecution report, this Court finds that it is not in dispute
that there has been title suit between the parties, inter alia, in
connection with plot no.1120 which is involved in the present
case and it is further not in dispute that an appeal has been filed
by the State against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff
arising out of Title Suit No.25 of 1996. This Court finds that
under identical circumstances, in Cr.M.P. No.1653 of 2009 (R.S.
Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and others) which also included
portions of plot no.1120 and other landed properties, this Court
has been pleased to quash the criminal proceeding by holding
that there being genuine dispute over the right and title, the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner in those cases were
not warranted. This Court also held that the State including its
Forest Department could pursue the remedy in suit / appeal
pending before the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction or
before this Court. It is not in dispute that the S.L.P. against the
aforesaid order passed by this Court has been dismissed. This
Court finds that the present case is similar to that of Cr.M.P.
No.1653 of 2009 and apparently there is title dispute between
the parties in connection with the properties involved in the
present case and primarily dispute between the parties is in the
realm of pure civil dispute. This Court is of the view that
continuance of the criminal proceedings as against the
petitioner in the present matter would be an abuse of the
process of law. Accordingly, in exercise of power conferred
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the entire criminal proceedings
arising out of B.F. Case No.14 of 2012 (Forest) as against the
petitioner, including order taking cognizance dated 06.03.2019
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is hereby
quashed. The State including its Forest Department can pursue
the remedy in suit/appeal pending before the Civil Court
having competent jurisdiction or before this Court.
9. This petition is accordingly allowed.
10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
11. Office is directed to communicate this order to the
learned court below through 'E-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
