Shri Giridhari Lal Soneja vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 4390 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shri Giridhari Lal Soneja vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 December, 2023

Author: Shree Chandrashekhar

Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
                    Cr. Misc. No. 3787 of 2001
                          ---------------

Shri Giridhari Lal Soneja, son of Sri R.L. Soneja, Ex-Chief General Manager, Bastacolla area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, PO&PS-Jharia, District-

Dhanbad                                                      ..... Petitioner
                                        Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad ....Opposite Parties

---------------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

---------------

For the Petitioner        : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP
                               ---------------

Order No. 09 / Dated: 4th December 2023

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 23rd February 2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dhanbad by which cognizance of the offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act has been taken in BF Case No.44 of 2000.

2. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order taking cognizance reflects complete non-application of mind on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate inasmuch as the said order has been issued in a printed format in which some details have been filled in by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

3. The petitioner has also raised a plea that the order taking cognizance dated 23rd February 2000 ignores the mandatory requirement in law that the area in question should atleast be shown to be falling under the Reserve Forest.

4. The petitioner has pleaded that at the relevant time he was posted as Regional Chief General Manager under Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, BCCL) and he is a "public servant" under section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The BCCL is a central government company which pays royalty on extraction of coal through mining operations. The petitioner further pleaded that the lands in question were transferred in favour of the BCCL which did not vest in the state government; by virtue of the provisions under sections 9 and 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the said lands remained in possession of the BCCL.

5. The object behind section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is

to ascertain the truth or otherwise in the complaint and to find out whether there is any material supporting the allegations in the complaint on the basis of which summons can be issued to the proposed accused to face the trial. The expression "for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding", amply demonstrates that the inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for ascertaining whether there is any evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify the issue of processes against the person(s) concerned.

6. In "Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Gha Digaonkar" AIR 1960 SC 1113 the Hon'ble Supreme Court elucidated the law on the subject, as under:

"9. The general scheme of the aforesaid sections is quite clear. Section 200 says inter alia what a Magistrate taking cognisance of an offence on complaint shall do on receipt of such a complaint. Section 202 says that the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against and direct an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint; in other words, the scope of an inquiry under the section is limited to finding out the truth or falsehood of the complaint in order to determine the question of the issue of process. The inquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint; that is, for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify the issue of process and commencement of proceedings against the person concerned. The section does not say that a regular trial for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage; for the person complained against can be legally called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has issued and he is put on trial. Section 203, be it noted, consists of two parts : the first part indicates what are the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. Section 204 says that if in the opinion of the Magistrate there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall take steps for the issue of necessary process."

7. The heading of the prosecution report filed in BF Case No.44 of 2000 reads: "regarding illegal mining in Ghanuadih Forest". The Forest Guard who submitted the prosecution report to Divisional Forest Officer at Dhanbad stated that some people were engaged in illegal mining in forest land. The Forest Guard further stated that the accused informed him that several years in the past the lands in question were taken on mining lease and in 1971-72 such lands were taken in possession by the Coal India Limited under the Nationalization of Coking Coal Act. Furthermore, on a glance at the order dated 23 rd February 2000, this Court gathers that the said order is in a printed form in which name of the accused and date of the prosecution report etc. have been filled in with pen. This also is a matter of record that other officers of the coal companies one of

whom was Mr. P.K. Chakravorty approached this Court to challenge the order taking cognizance and the criminal proceedings against him. In Cr. M.P. No.711 of 2008, the criminal proceedings against Mr. P.K. Chakravorty were quashed on the ground that no further notification under section 30 of the Forest Act was issued on the expiration of 30 years. Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the BCCL refers to the order passed by the Principal Secretary (Forest) for diversification of 234.08 hectares land and the consequent notification dated 14 th August 2015 on payment of compensation to the state government to the tune of Rs.19 Crores (approx.). The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the order issued on 12th April 2012 by which diversion of lands in question was permitted by the MoEF, Government of India, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner can no longer continue.

8. The exercise of powers under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ensues serious consequences and that precisely seems to be the reason the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again said that the Magistrate must exercise the discretion judiciously. Therefore, if on a bare reading of the complaint, it can be gathered that the allegations made in the complaint are so inherently improbable or, the act or omission so complained does not constitute any offence against the accused or, the pre-summoning evidence does not support continuance of the criminal proceedings, the complaint must necessarily be dismissed. In "Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd." (2008) 13 SCC 678 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the documents of unimpeachable character can be taken into consideration while entertaining a quash petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was under a mistaken impression that the coal company has a valid mining lease and the subsequent order for the diversion of subject lands, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The cognizance order dated 23rd February 2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dhanbad is set aside and, consequently, the criminal proceedings in BF Case No.44 of 2000 are also quashed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J) R.K.