Rajendra Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1881 Jhar

                                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr.M.P. No. 1348 of 2014

Rajendra Prasad Singh                                ......     Petitioner
                           Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Divisonal Forest Officer, Bokaro
3. Range Officer, Chas Forest Range, Chas, Bokaro
                                                            ......     Opp. Parties



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

For the Petitioner      : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Spl.P.P.
                   ...............

04/Dated: 02/05/2023

Heard Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Vishwanath Ray, learned counsel for the State.

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

including order dated 11.04.2014 whereby the learned Revisional Court has been

pleased to dismiss the Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2014 affirming the order dated

25.10.2013 passed by the learned C.J.M., Bokaro in B.F. No. 24 of 2013 has been

affirmed.

3. The prosecution report has been submitted alleging therein that on

18.02.2012 at about 11.00 A.M. the informant along with Sheo Nandan Singh Co-

guard were on duty within the notified forest, they saw that the accused with the help

of Dozer was destroying the boundary of the forest area and on their protest the work

was stopped after disclosing that the land belongs to plot no. 15 which is an area of

Bandhogda Protected Forest Notified Area. They asked why such an act was being

committed by him. At this they became furious and left the place taking their dozer.

After the receipt of aforesaid report the Range Officer visited the place of occurrence

and found the allegations true in course of his enquiry made on 19.02.2012 he has

categorically mentioned regarding place of occurrence where the offence was

committed situated over 03 decimals land of plot no. 15 of Bandhgoda forest which

has been notified vide Notification C/F 170145-8-1429 dated 24.05.1958. Thus had

come to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under

section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and accordingly, prosecution report was submitted

after obtaining sanction by the Divisional Forest Officer, concerned with regard to

launching prosecution against the accused under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

4. Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is not secretary of Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti however, once upon

he was secretary of the said Samiti. He further submits that the petitioner being a

allottee of the land had purchased some land as such is inactive member of the

aforesaid samiti. He further submits that the land of plot no. 5 and 15 of village

Bandhgora, Thana No. 35, P.S. Pindrajora, District Bokaro was the raiyati land and

earlier a dispute was raised between the Forest Department and the concerned

raiyats of the plot in question and for which the Regular Title Suit No. 140 of 1954

was preferred by 11 plaintiffs against the State of Bihar and one amongst them the

Grand father of the petitioner was one of the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit and the plot

no. 5 and 15 of Khata No. 28 were also subject matter of the said title suit. He

further submits that the said suit was decreed in favour of the grand father of the

petitioner vide judgment dated 24.07.1956. He further submits that the said land was

purchased by Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti from heirs of Shanti Ram Mahtha by

registered deed in the year, 1984. He submits that the petitioner was appointed as a

Secretary of the said Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti and subsequently he was

appointed Secretary of another Samiti. He further submits that earlier Criminal

Revision No. 27 of 1990 (R) was filed before this Court which decided in favour of the

of the petitioner. He submits that BPLE Case No. 19 of 1988-89 was initiated against

the Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti and that was also decided in favour of the

petitioner. He submits that on the basis of notification of 1958 the case has been

instituted by the Forest Department.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that it was

found that the land was within the domain of the Forest Department that is why case

has been lodged.

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

Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that in the complaint

petition itself it has been disclosed that the notification is of the year, 1958. 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. The Court finds that for the land in question a title suit

was filed which was decreed in favour of the grand father of the petitioner. Further

litigation in BPLE case and criminal revision has been decided in favour of the Adarsh

Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti. Further it appears that the Forest Department has not

filed any appeal pursuant to decree passed in tittle suit.

7. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, it appears that the case

is malicious in nature against the petitioner. It is well settled that when the disputed

question of fact is there with regard to the civil action, that can be only decided in a

suit.

8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including order dated

11.04.2014 whereby the learned Revisional Court has been pleased to dismiss the Cr.

Revision No. 4 of 2014 affirming the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the learned

C.J.M., Bokaro in B.F. No. 24 of 2013 has been affirmed, is quashed.

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/