Jharkhand High Court

Swaraj Bhowmik vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                   (2025:JHHC:11427)




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No. 2421 of 2017


            Swaraj Bhowmik, son of Amarendra Bhowmik, resident of Mouza
            Jarsol, P.O. & P.S.-Dhalbhumgarh, Dist.-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
                                                   ....                      Petitioner


                                       Versus

            The State of Jharkhand
                                                   ....                        Opp. Party


                                       PRESENT

                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth A.S. Pati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, 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

Complaint Case No. 12 of 2017 as well as the order taking

cognizance dated 19.02.2017 by which the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Ghatshila has taken cognizance of the offence

punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as

amended thereafter and also under Section 66A of Bihar Public

Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and Bihar Violation XV, 1956 Act.

3. Perusal of the record reveals that inadvertently Section 66A of

Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and Bihar Violation

XV, 1956 Act has been mentioned in the cognizance order dated

(2025:JHHC:11427)

19.02.2017 instead of Section 66A of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as

introduced by amendment of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by Bihar

Act 9 of 1990. The same shall be read accordingly.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner

contrary to the prohibition under Section 30 of Indian Forest Act,

1927 has cleared the protected forest land for constructing a

building and has in fact, constructed a building after clearing the

protected forest land by encroaching upon the protected forest

land.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Forest

Officer, Chakulia had informed the father of the petitioner that old

plot no. 15 has been released from the forest department and the

father of the petitioner may apply to the local block development

officer for settlement of the land and accordingly the father of the

petitioner applied for settlement of the land. It is next submitted

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification

regarding declaring the place of occurrence as a protected forest

having been claimed to be issued in the year 1956, the same has

already lost its force. The petitioner pleaded that to the best of his

knowledge, the Government has not complied with the

mandatory provision of Sections 29, 30 and 32 of Indian Forest

Act, 1927. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the provision of Bihar Public Land Encroachment

Act is not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, it is submitted

(2025:JHHC:11427)

that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be

allowed.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand

vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this

criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the criminal

miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived one;

hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Drawing attention of this

Court to paragraph no. 12 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted

by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the claim of the

petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case, is out

and out false. It is next submitted by learned Additional Public

Prosecutor that as has been mentioned in the counter affidavit, the

land in question is notified as forest land, vide notification dated

07.02.1986. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public

Prosecutor that B.P.L.E. Case No. 62/2018-19 has also been

instituted against the petitioner and the petitioner has already

appeared in the said case. It is further submitted by learned

Additional Public Prosecutor that the State-opposite party has

denied the claim of the petitioner that the State Government has

not complied with the mandatory provision of Sections 29, 30 and

32 of Indian Forest Act. It is then submitted by learned Additional

Public Prosecutor that vide the Bihar Act 9 of 1990 by way of State

Amendment after Section 66 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the

following new Section 66A has been inserted which reads as

under:-

(2025:JHHC:11427)

"66-A. Eviction of encroachment from Government Forest Land.--(1) Encroachment of Government Forest Land shall be cognizable and non-bailable offence. (2) Any Forest Officer not below the rank of Divisional Forest Officer, if he has reason to believe that the encroachment of Government Forest Land has been done, may evict the encroachment and may use all the powers conferred on Magistrate under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (Bihar Act XV of 1956)." [Vide Bihar Act 9 of 1990, S. 7 (w.e.f. 10-9-1990)]." (Emphasis supplied)

7. It is then submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that

as per Section 66A of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Bihar

Act 9 of 1990, encroachment of forest land is a cognizable and

non-bailable offence so, no illegality has been committed by the

learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of a cognizable offence,

under the said Section 66A of Indian Forest Act and as

undisputedly, the case has been instituted against the petitioner

for encroaching the forest land vide B.P.L.E. Case No. 62/2018-19

so by encroachment of forest land, a cognizable offence under

Section 66A having been committed, therefore, no illegality has

been committed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of

the same. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public

Prosecutor that there may be some error in the verbatim, while

translating the provision of law as mentioned in Hindi in the

complaint to the cognizance order which is in English but the

same do not warrant quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.

Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition

being without any merit be dismissed.

8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials in the record, the undisputed fact remains

(2025:JHHC:11427)

that the petitioner has encroached upon the forest land and

cleared the same for construction of the building. It is the defence

of the petitioner that the place of occurrence land is not a forest

land and this claim of the petitioner has thoroughly been denied

in paragraph no. 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the State-

opposite party, in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

Undisputedly, Section 66A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927

introduced by way of State Amendment by Bihar Act 9 of 1990

makes encroachment of forest land to be a cognizable and non-

bailable offence.

9. It is a settled principle of law 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

that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise

of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and at the stage of

deciding application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court

cannot get into the appreciation of the evidence of the particular

case, 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)

(2025:JHHC:11427)

10. Now coming to the facts of the case, in view of the discussions

made above, if the allegations made against the petitioner are

considered to be true in their entirety, certainly, the offence

punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 is prima

facie made out against the petitioner besides the offence

punishable under Section 66A of Indian Forest Act as introduced

by Bihar Act 9 of 1990.

11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in

connection with Complaint Case No. 12 of 2017 as well as the

order taking cognizance dated 19.02.2017 be quashed and set

aside against the petitioner.