Durga Das Mahatha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1711 Jhar

                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr.M.P. No. 453 of 2014

1.Durga Das Mahatha
2.Shakti Pad Mahatha                                  ......       Petitioners
                            Versus

The State of Jharkhand                         ......     Opp. Party



CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                        ---------

For the Petitioners      : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
                    ...............

04/Dated: 24/04/2023

At the outset Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that during pendency of this petition, petitioner no. 2 has left for his heavenly abode.

He confines his prayer with regard to petitioner no. 1 only.

2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 and Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding

including order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2012 passed in B.F. Case No. 40 of

2012 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro.

4. The prosecution report has been submitted by the informant namely,

Sheo Nandan Singh -Forest Guard alleging therein that on 13.12.2010 at about 11

hrs. he alongwith Sri Manohar Prasad (Forest Guard) were on patrolling at Tiyara

Forest, he saw that foundation was made on the land of forest area, measuring of 10,

12, chain. He came to know from the villagers that last night accused persons have

committed this act by J.C.B. machine, when he asked the accused persons about this

act, they said that the land in question belong to them.

5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submits that

the petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the land in question. He submits that the

petitioner no. 1 has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the learned

court in a mechanical manner took cognizance. He submits that the land in question

(mouza Tiara, thana Chas, Thana no. 95, khata no. 17, plot no. 1722) belongs to the

petitioners and others. He submits that a Title Suit No. 06 of 1986 was filed for

declaration of right and title in which State has contested the suit and the said suit

was decided in favour of the petitioners and decree was passed. He submits that the

said judgment was not challenged by the State.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the case is

made out that is why the learned court has taken cognizance.

7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the

Court has gone through the contents of complaint as well as order taking cognizance

and finds that for the land in question the present complaint has been filed. On

perusal of Annexure-2 of the petition, it transpires that the said suit was filed by the

petitioners which was contested by the State and the said suit was decreed in favour

of the petitioners and against the said judgment and decree the State has not

preferred any appeal. It transpires that on the strength of notification dated

24.05.1958 the present complaint has been filed. Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act

read with Section 30(b) of the Act provides that notification shall remain in force for

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

8. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal

proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2012 passed in B.F. Case

No. 40 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro,

so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, is set aside.

9. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending, I.A, if any,

stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/