Jharkhand High Court

Naresh Lodha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 July, 2022

                                                    1                     Cr.M.P. No. 1274 of 2016


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No. 1274 of 2016
             1. Naresh Lodha, S/o Late Mahabir Prasad Lodha
             2. Bhagirath Sharma, S/o Bhuneshwar Sharma
                Petitioner no.1 resident of Plot No.16, City Centre, Sector-4, B.S. City,
                District- Bokaro, at present residing at Purulia Road, P.O. & P.S. Chas,
                District- Bokaro, Petitioner no.2 resident of Village Labudih, P.O. Kura,
                P.S. Pindrajora, Distt.- Bokaro                      ... Petitioners
                                          -Versus-
                The State of Jharkhand                               ... Opposite Party
                                            -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                            -----
             For the Petitioners            : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate

For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.

-----

08/21.07.2022. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance

dated 14.12.2015 as well as entire criminal proceedings in connection with

C3 (Forest) No.1/2014, whereby, cognizance has been taken under Section

33 of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the court of the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

3. On the written report of the Forest Range Officer, Chas, the FIR has

been lodged wherein it was alleged that on 05.04.2014 at about 11:00 a.m.

he reached the forest Plot No.7562 under Mauza Chas Forest with colleague

forest officials and found that the accused persons enumerated in the

offence report were doing worshipping before the pictures of God in the

said forest by enclosing the area with tent and bamboo, which was an

attempt to grab the forest land. Upon seeing them, the infamous land mafia

succeeded in running away. They were chased but could not be caught.

Therefore, the enclosures made by them were demolished and seizure was

effected as per Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, the In-charge Forest

Guard Sri Jagdish Ram has submitted offence report no.33 dated 5.4.2014

in this regard. It was also alleged that the informant made verification on

6.4.2014 about the occurrence and found it to be true. He called the

accused through the Forest Guard but he did not appear before him. Again

on 11.4.2014 through the Forest Guard they were called. The accused

persons are infamous land mafia who keep evil eyes for land-grabbing.

Earlier also offence reports had been submitted against the accused persons

by the Forest Guard. Chas Forest is a notified protected forest whose

Notification is no.C/F 10174/58 R dated 24.5.1958. The Chas Forest Plot No.

is 7562 and area 15 decimals. It is situated aside the NH, which is of high

value and the land mafias intend to grab the land one way or the other. The

land mafia intend to sell it to builders at high price. The criminals have

overnight cleared 10 decimals land and changed its form. The attempt has

been made to grab the land. In course of verification it has been found that

while running away the mobile phone of the accused fell down which was

also seized along with other articles and confiscation has been requested

for. It was learnt that the name of father of Naresh Lodha was not Chandi

Prasad Lodha, but it was Late Mahavir Prasad Lodha. It was further alleged

that the criminals have made serious violation of Section 33 of the India

Forest Act, 1927, which is punishable and non-bailable offence.

4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that petitioner no.1 has purchased part of the land vide two registered

deeds of sale bearing deed no.4944 dated 23.06.2008 and deed no.2412

dated 05.03.2010 from registered power of attorney holder of the vendor

namely Suresh Prasad and others. He further submits that in the FIR, it was

alleged that the date of occurrence is 05.04.2014. He also submits that in

light of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the notification is dated

24.05.1958 and the same remained in force for 30 years. He further submits

that the land in question was the subject matter in the Title Suit filed by the

owners of the vendor in Title Suit No.16 of 1993, which was decreed in

favour of the vendors from whom the petitioners have purchased the land in

question. He also submits that the said judgment was challenged by the

Forest Department in Title Appeal No.38 of 1998 which was dismissed and

decree was confirmed. He further submits that Section 33 of the Act

provides imprisonment for six months. By way of referring Section 468

Cr.P.C., he submits that the prosecution has filed the case on 10.12.2015

and in light of Section 468 Cr.P.C., it is barred by time. On this ground, he

submits that this petition is fit to be allowed.

5. Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State submits

that so far as limitation ground is concerned, the petitioners are required to

file a petition before the learned trial court. He further submits that he has

not been instructed about any further appeal after dismissal of the said Title

Appeal.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds

that in the FIR, the date of occurrence was 05.04.2014, however the case

was filed on 10.12.2015. Section 33 speaks that the offences prescribed in

(a) to (h) are punishable for imprisonment which may extend to six months

or fine may extend to Rs.500/- or with both. Thus, the prosecution case was

required to be filed within aforesaid time. Admittedly the prosecution case

was filed on 10.12.2015 i.e. after lapse of more than one year. For the sake

of convenience, Section 468 Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below:

"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.--(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be--

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."

7. Looking into Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 468 Cr.P.C. in light of the

punishment prescribed in the Forest Act, the case was required to be filed

within a year and this Section bars of taking cognizance if the case is not

instituted within the period prescribed. Admittedly, Title Suit No. 16 of 1993

was filed declaration of right, tile and interest by the petitioners' vendors

which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against that judgment, the

Department filed Title Appeal No.38 of 1998, which was also dismissed.

Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that he has not been instructed

about filing of any further appeal by the Forest Department. In light of

Section 29 of the Forest Act, the notification is dated 24.05.1958 and

Section 30(b) of the Act provides that such notification shall remain in force

for 30 years. Admittedly, no notification is there under Section 30 of the Act.