Bideshi Bhuiyan Alias Videshi ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1833 Jhar

                                                                Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022
                                          ------

Bideshi Bhuiyan Alias Videshi Bhuiyan, aged 75 years, son of Late Sanichar Bhuiyan, Resident of Village Jhikatiya, P.O. & P.S. Hunterganj, District- Chatra. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party

------

             For the Petitioner        : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.

                                                   ------


                                         PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY



By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the

Complaint (U.C.) Case No.862 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable

under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 3A of Forest

Conservation Act, 1980 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Chatra.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed

the offence of breaking of into and clearing the protected forest land. It is

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed

Original Suit No.134 of 2018 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Chatra

inter alia praying for right, title, interest and possession over the suit land but

Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022

the description of the suit land has not been mentioned in this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the defendant upon receipt of the notice under Section 80 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, the copy of which has not been annexed with this

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, has filed his Complaint (U.C.) Case No.862 of

2018. It is next submitted that the petitioner and his ancestors are in possession

of the suit land for more than ninety years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami &

Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others reported in [2007] 10 SCR 847

paragraph-45 of which reads as under:-

"45. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressure the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained."

And submits that this criminal prosecution has been used as an

instrument of harassment for seeking private vendetta; with an ulterior motive

to pressurize the petitioner who is the accused of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Brajesh Kumar Ray & Others vs.

State of Jharkhand & Others reported in MANU/JH/0305/2005 wherein in the

facts of that case, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed a direction to

the parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession, title and construction,

Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022

the co-ordinate Bench set aside the criminal proceeding in respect of the same

subject matter of the dispute.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of

another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R. S. Singh @ Rama

Shankar Singh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in

Cr.M.P. No.1653 of 2009 with other allied cases dated 31.07.2010 wherein in

the facts of that case, the right and title on the basis of registered sale-deed was

obtained by the accused persons from the Raiyats and there was genuine

dispute over right and title, the co-ordinate Bench quashed the criminal

proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding, as

prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed.

7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the

prayer for quashing the Complaint (U.C.) Case No.862 of 2018, as prayed for by

the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not filed any document

whatsoever to show his right, title and interest over the suit land in respect of

which he has filed the suit nor is there any order of injunction or status quo

passed in his favour as was passed by the apex court in the case of Brajesh

Kumar Ray & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others (supra). It is next

submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having

committed the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act,

1927 and Section 3 A of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the said fact remains

undisputed. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition,

being without any merit, be dismissed.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention

Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022

here that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Brajesh

Kumar Ray & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) and R. S. Singh

@ Rama Shankar Singh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others

(supra). There is no order of status quo or injunction passed in any civil

proceeding involving the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any chit of

paper regarding his right, title and interest over the land which he claims to be

of his. There is specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed

the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and

Section 3 (A) of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It is a settled principle of law

that court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether an evidence is reliable

or not in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as that would

be the function of the trial court as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others

reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691.

9. It is also a settled principle of law that inherent power under Section 482

Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.)

& Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.

10. So far as the judgment of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of

Uttaranchal & Others (supra) is concerned, the facts of this case are entirely

different from the facts of that case as that case was a private dispute between

the two parties.

11. Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 envisage punishment for any

person who breaks up or clears for cultivation or any other purpose any land in

any protected forest; contrary to any prohibition under section 30 of the said

Act. There is no dispute that the petitioner has committed the said offence

Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022

punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, if the defence of the

petitioner that the place of occurrence land belongs to him, is not considered.

Similarly, section 3A of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 envisages

punishment for a person who contravenes or abets the contravention of any of

the provisions of section 2 of the said Act. Section 2 of the Forest Conservation

Act, 1980 inter alia prohibits use of forest land for non-forest purpose. Thus

there is no dispute also that the petitioner has committed the offence

punishable under section 3 A of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, either. There

is no document put forth by the petitioner let alone any unimpeachable

document regarding the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the place of

occurrence land. Otherwise also, it is a settled principle of law that the High

Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, is not embark upon an enquiry the veracity of the evidence which is

basically the defence of the accused person of the case, as that would be the job

of the trial court.

12. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court mere filing of a title suit,

without any order of injunction or status quo being passed, certainly cannot be

used as a shield by the plaintiff of a civil suit against any criminal prosecution,

even if, the party to a suit commits a criminal wrong.

13. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court is of the

considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the criminal case

against the petitioner merely because he has filed a civil suit and thus this is not

a fit case to quash the Complaint (U.C.) Case No.862 of 2018, as prayed for by

the petitioner.

Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any

merit, is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01st of May, 2023 AFR/ Animesh