[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Betal Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8554
1 MCRC-20690-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20690 of 2019
BETAL SINGH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mrs. Padam Shri Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar- PP for the State.
ORDER
The present criminal petition has been preferred under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of P.O.R.
No.22413/01 dated 14.09.2017 registered by respondent No.3 for the offence
punishable under Section 33(1)(b) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, along with
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the registered
owner of tractor bearing registration No. MP06-AB-0975 having Engine No.
E2334696 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"). According to
the prosecution, the forest authorities intercepted the offending vehicle on
15.09.2017 and seized it on the allegation that it was involved in illegal
quarrying of stone in forest compartment No. P-19 between boundary pillars
No.36 and 37. The authorities alleged that upon noticing the forest officials,
the vehicle attempted to flee from the place of occurrence and was later
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8554
2 MCRC-20690-2019
apprehended near the PWD road close to village Rancholi. A spot
panchnama and site map were prepared by the forest officials. Based on the
said allegations, P.O.R. No.22413/01 dated 14.09.2017 was registered under
Section 33(1)(b) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner is facing criminal prosecution before the JMFC Morena.
Simultaneously, confiscation proceedings were also initiated before the
competent forest authority, namely the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer,
Morena.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned POR is
illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is contended that under the
scheme of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, an offence under Section 33(1)(b)
can arise only if the State Government has issued a notification under
Section 30(c) declaring the particular act as prohibited in the concerned
forest area and the same must be duly published in accordance with Section
31 of the Act. According to the petitioner, no such notification has been
issued by the State Government nor has the Collector Morena published any
notification declaring quarrying of stone in the concerned area to be an
offence. Therefore, the alleged act does not fall within the mischief of
Section 33 of the Act. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the
High Court in Ramlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2003) 4 MPHT 354 .
Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State
opposed the petition and submitted that the offending vehicle was found
involved in illegal extraction of forest produce. It is submitted that after
following due process of law and providing opportunity of hearing to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8554
3 MCRC-20690-2019
petitioner, the competent authority confiscated the vehicle by order dated
02.05.2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner had an efficacious
statutory remedy of appeal under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, but
instead of availing the said remedy the petitioner has approached this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The State has relied upon several decisions of the
Supreme Court including State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa (2002) 3
SCC 89, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC 705 , Rajesh Bajaj v.
State NCT of Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 1216 , Satvinder Kaur v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728 , State of Punjab v. Mohan Lal Chopra, AIR 1967
SC 1590, Rumi Dhar v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 6 SCC 364 to submit
that inherent powers should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional
circumstances.
Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire record with
due care.
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is extraordinary in nature. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal laid down the well-known principles governing the exercise of such
power and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed only in rare
circumstances. Similarly, in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa (Supra) ,
it was held that the inherent power of the High Court should not be exercised
to stifle legitimate prosecution. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
(Supra), the Supreme Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court should not meticulously examine the evidence
or conduct a mini-trial. The same principle was reiterated in Satvinder Kaur
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8554
4 MCRC-20690-2019
v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Supra), wherein it was held that disputed questions
of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the present case, the principal contention raised by the petitioner is
that no notification under Sections 30 and 31 of the Indian Forest Act exists
declaring the act complained of as an offence. However, the petitioner has
not filed any documentary material before this Court to demonstrate that the
area in question was not a notified forest area. Therefore, the issue whether
the concerned forest area was notified or not is essentially a question of fact
which requires appreciation of evidence. Such issues cannot be adjudicated
in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is free to raise the
said defence before the trial court.
Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 empowers the authorized
forest officer to seize forest produce together with tools, vehicles or
implements used in committing a forest offence. The statute further provides
a complete mechanism regarding confiscation and appeal.
The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai , (2017)
14 SCC 502 has categorically held that once confiscation proceedings are
initiated under the Forest Act, the jurisdiction of criminal courts in relation to
the seized property becomes restricted and the statutory scheme must be
followed.
In the present case, the confiscation proceedings have already
culminated in an order dated 02.05.2019 whereby the vehicle has been
confiscated. Against the said order the petitioner had an efficacious statutory
remedy of appeal under Section 52-A of the Act, but the same has not been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8554
5 MCRC-20690-2019
availed. Therefore, the present petition is also liable to be dismissed on the
ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
The reliance placed by the petitioner on Ramlal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (Supra) is misconceived. The applicability of the said judgment
would depend upon factual determination regarding existence or otherwise of
statutory notification under the Forest Act. Such factual determination can
only be undertaken by the trial court upon appreciation of evidence.
Therefore, the said judgment does not advance the case of the petitioner at
this stage.
Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition raises
disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The petitioner has failed to produce any material to substantiate his
claim regarding absence of statutory notification. Confiscation proceedings
have already been concluded and the petitioner had an efficacious statutory
remedy of appeal. The petitioner is free to raise all available defences before
the trial court. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the inherent
powers of the High Court should be exercised sparingly and only in
exceptional cases. This Court does not find the present case to fall within any
of the exceptional categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all
permissible legal and factual defences before the trial court, which shall
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8554
6 MCRC-20690-2019
consider the same strictly in accordance with law without being influenced
by any observation made in this order.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
