Kamlesh Yadav Alias Neta Yadav and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Amar Saran and Anurag Kumar, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR and staying the arrest of the petitioners in case crime No. 668 of 2012, under sections 332, 353, 379, I.P.C., 5 /26, 41 /42 of Indian Forest Act, and 27, 29, 50 and 51 of Indian Wildlife Protection Act", PS Chopan, district Sonbhadra.

The allegations in the FIR lodged by Shri Sadanand Yadav, Wildlife Guard were that in the night intervening 3/4.10.2012 at about 12.00 night, when the informant was patrolling in the forest sanctuary, he received information that four trucks carrying sand were going in the direction of Markundi. After concealing himself, he gave this information to Shri S.N. Tripathi, Regional Forest Officer, Gurma. At about 12.50 a.m., he saw the light on four vehicles coming from the side of Bargara. The informant and one Wildlife Guard Bechan Yadav tried to stop the trucks, (sic) did not stop. Then the informant and Wildlife Guard gave a chase to the trucks. Three of the trucks escaped successfully, but the fourth truck bearing No, UP 65 R-2027 was apprehended near Bajrang Petrol Pump, Maimundi. He tried to catch the driver, but in the scuffle and taking advantage of the darkness, he succeeded in running away. However, petitioner Brijesh Yadav, who was travelling in the truck and claims himself to be the Khalasi was apprehended at the spot. Thereafter the Forest Officer arrived with some forest personnel and with the help of police picket, they arranged for a driver and drove the truck in the direction of Chopan. On the truck Shri Ram Badan Yadav, Forest Inspector and Shri Bechan Yadav, Wildlife Guard were sitting. When they reached near Parwal Bridge, accused Kamlesh Yadav alias Neta, Kripa Yadav, Dinesh Pandey and five other unknown persons arrived there. They started abusing the Forest Inspector and by criminal acts they were able to free Khalasi and to forcibly take away the truck and make good their escape.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the FIR has been lodged in a mala fide manner after three days, the incident was untrue because it was not possible for the petitioners to have taken away the truck and to have got the Khalasi released. It was not explained how the informant knew the names of all the accused persons. The petitioners are not the owner of the truck and they have no concern with transporting of this sand and no offence under the Forest Act and Wildlife Act are disclosed.

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajeet Singh alias Muraha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Station House Officer and Hans Raj, reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Ajeet Singh alias Muraha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Station House Officer and Hans Raj, after considering the various decisions of the Apex Court including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

Furthermore, it was not improbable that if 5-10 miscreants prevail upon the limited numbers of forest officials, who were present at the spot for the purpose of forcibly releasing the truck and getting the Khalasi released. Looking to the daring nature of the act and the nature of the crime, it is hardly of any consequence whether in fact the petitioners were only the owner of the truck and whether they were engaged in transporting the sand. In any case, these are all matters which are to be considered during the investigation or trial or bail. As sand was being illegally mined and taken out from the forest sanctuary, clearly offence under the Forest Act and Wildlife Act are also disclosed.

In view of what has been indicated herein above, we find no force in the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.