Jharkhand High Court
K. Sreekant @ Srikant vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3729 of 2017
1. K. Sreekant @ Srikant, son of Murli, resident of GVC Construction
Camp, Ruasole, P.O. & P.S.-Dhalbhumgarh, Dist.-East Singhbhum
2. Sheikh Sahzad Ali @ Sk Sahzada Ali, son of Islam Ali, resident of
Village-Jugisole, P.O. & P.S. -Dhalbhumgarh, Dist.-East Singhbhum
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kr. Dash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/3 Case
No. 8 of 2015 including the order dated 17.08.2016 whereby
cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian
Forest Act and Section 33 of Bihar Amendment Act, 1989 has been
taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ghatshila.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 10.04.2015 at about
11:00 am, the forest guard during the patrolling inside the protected
forest, found the petitioners along with 40-50 labourers illegally
digging the earth and was clearing of the forest for the purpose of
making construction of culvert and on seeing the forest guard the
petitioners ran away and remained successful in fleeing away.
4. On the basis of the complaint, the case was instituted and after
submission of the offence report, cognizance has been taken.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order passed by
a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand
Choudhary vs. State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 1530 of 2014 dated
01.11.2021 wherein in the facts of that case as it became crystal clear
that the petitioners of that case were doing public work under the
order of the Department, during which the damage took place so the
coordinate Bench was of the considered view that no offence is made
out and quashed the order taking cognizance including the entire
criminal proceeding in that case and submits that in this case also the
construction work was going on behalf of M/s GVR Infra Project
Limited by the order of the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution
Division No.7, Galudih and in this respect learned counsel for the
petitioners draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-2 which is
the letter issued by the executive engineer for construction of work.
It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
forest clearance has been accorded by the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest cum Executive Director, Govt. of Jharkhand
which has been marked Annexure-3. Therefore, it is submitted that
the petitioners being employees of M/s. GVR Infra Project Limited
has the right to use the forest land for purposes other than the forest.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes
the prayer as made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous
petition and submits that Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
prohibits use of forest land for non-forest purposes and Section 3A of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 provides the penalty for the
same. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that Annexure-2
does not show that the same anywhere relates to Annexure-3 nor the
place of occurrence shows any road going through the forest area
where the construction of culvert was made. Hence, it is submitted
that there is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition;
therefore, the same being without any merit be dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that it is a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted
by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported
in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as
under :-
" Having gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High court has set aside the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC,
it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a
mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage
and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC.
As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions,
no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in
exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and
at the stage of deciding the application under Section
482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of
evidence of the particular case being considering.
(Emphasis supplied)
8. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., a genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has
been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains
that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under
Section 33 of Indian Forest Act as amended by the Bihar Amendment
by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 but the only defence of the petitioners is that
they have been permitted by the Executive Engineer of Minor
Distribution Division No.7, Galudih. As per Section 2 of Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 the use of forest land for non-forest
purposes is prohibited. Section 3B of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 provides punishment for offences by authorities of any
department also.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
this is not a fit case to quash the entire criminal proceeding, at this
stage.
11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 4th September, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
