Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 21st OF MAY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 45577 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIRENDRA PANDEY S/O M.R. PANDEY
OCCUPATION: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED COMPANY
BHAROLI TEHSIL MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI NAMAN NAGRATH - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI UTKARSH
KUMAR SONKAR - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
FOREST RANGE OFFICER FOREST RANGE
MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
............................................................................................................................................
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking following reliefs:
"It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to quash the proceedings
emanating from Forest Offence No.115/2021
dated 03.12.2022 inclusive of charge-sheet
filed in the court on 12.06.2023, order of
cognizance dated 12.06.2023 and subsequent
proceedings by the Court."
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that a complaint case has
been filed for offence under Sections 33(1)(a), (c), (d) of Indian Forest
Act and under Section 2(16), Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild
Life Protection Act. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the trial
Court has fixed the case for framing of charges without recording
statements under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. and even if applicant raises an
objection in that regard, then it may not be possible for the Court to
review its own order in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others
reported in AIR 2004 SC 4674.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent/State that the
charges are yet to be framed and it is well established principle of law
that if complaint/charge sheet has not been filed alleging violation of
any other provision of law, still the trial Court can frame the charge for
committing offence under different provisions of Forest Act. It is
submitted that there is an allegation that at the instigation of applicant,
the tribals had destroyed the trees and they had encroached upon the
forest land, which is also punishable under Section 26 of Indian Forest
Act.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.
5. The only grievance of applicant is that the procedure as required
under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed.
6. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the
trial Court is directed to consider as to whether the procedure as
prescribed under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. is required to be followed or
not and only after deciding the said aspect, shall proceed further.
7. It is made clear that if any other offence is made out from the
allegations made in the complaint, then the trial Court shall not hesitate
in proceeding for said offence also.
8. With aforesaid observation, application is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
SR*
