AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicants have prosecuted the present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. against the registration of a private complaint No. 225/2011 registered by the J.M.F.C. Maihar, District Satna for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 452, 427 and 323/34 of IPC. The facts of the case, in short are that, the respondent nos. 1-A and 1-B had submitted a complaint against the applicants. According to the complaint, the respondent no. 1-A was running a Lime and Chemical Company and the respondent no. 1-B was in-charge of a crasher plant situated at village Noagwan, Tahsil Maiher, District Satna. It is alleged in the complaint that a suit for declaration and injunction was prosecuted by the complainants before the Additional District Judge Maihar, which was dismissed and it was directed that the complainant may not be dispossessed without adopting any legal method. The First Appeal No. 444/06 was filed before the High Court and vide order dated 19.7.2006, it was directed by the High Court that the complainant may not be dispossessed from the land. On 8.9.2010, the applicants alongwith many persons went to the spot and forcefully entered the crasher plant. They threatened to destroy the plant and thereafter, various machinery etc., were destroyed and motors, conveyer belts etc., were taken away by the applicants. The complainant Ajay Mishra was also assaulted with kicks and fists by the applicants and other persons and the generator room was also destroyed by the JCB machine. The complainants described their allegations in the complaint. It is alleged that the applicants had committed the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 395, 397, 458, 452 & 450 read with Section 34 of IPC and also Section 62 of the Indian Forest Act. The learned J.M.F.C. after considering the entire evidence produced before him registered a criminal complaint against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 452, 427 and 323/34 of IPC.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on 8.9.2010, the applicants who were the officers of the Forest Department went to the spot and found that a forest crime was committed by the respondent Nos. 1-A and 1-B. Copy of POR and other documents are also annexed with the petition. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited attention of this Court to the documents like seizure memos and the reports relating to the registration of crime. It is submitted that the complainants set up their crasher plant in the forest land which is a crime. Hence, a crime is registered against the complainants, but no destruction of property was done by the applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants took a plea that no permission u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. was obtained by the complainants before filing the complaint. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the complaint registered against the applicants may be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1-A and 1-B has submitted that there is no need of any sanction u/s 197 of Cr.P.C., because the applicants had not done their public duties, rather they went beyond their public duties. It was also submitted that in the first appeal, the Hon''ble High Court has granted a stay order that the complainants would not be dispossessed and that order was in force at that time therefore, neither any notice of dispossession could be given by the forest officers nor such activity of mischief and assault could be done by them. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1-A and 1-B has placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the cases of Choudhury Parveen Sultana Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, , Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava Vs. N.P. Mishra, and Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, . The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1-A and 1-B has also submitted some photographs from the site of the complainants to show the destruction done by the applicants. The statement given by the respondent No. 1-B cannot be brushed aside at this stage that he was assaulted. The applicants had no authority to enter into the premises in a forceful manner. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly registered a complaint against the applicants.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that the applicants had also registered a forest crime against the complainants, which is a separate matter and therefore, it is not necessary to discuss that matter at present. The respondents have shown the order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the First Appeal No. 444/06, wherein it was directed that the complainants should not be dispossessed from the property. If the judgment dated 28.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar in Civil Suit No. 7-A/1998 is perused then, it would be apparent that the complainants had moved a suit for declaration and injunction for the land bearing survey no. 5/01. After perusal of the complaint filed by the complainants and the revenue document (Annexure-P/3), which is a report was given by the Nayab Tahsildar Badera, Tahsil Maihar in which it was shown that the land bearing survey no. 5/01 was registered as a Reserve Forest and it was of the Forest Department, whereas the land bearing survey no. 5/02 in the same village Naogawan was of the State of Madhya Pradesh, it would be apparent that if any encroachment was found on the land survey no. 5/02 then, no cause of action arose to the applicants to dispossess the complainants from that land. They could get an initiation for the land bearing survey no. 5/01 of village Noagwan, which was a forest land.
It is also apparent that vide order dated 19.7.2006, the Single Bench of this Court has prohibited the forest officers to dispossess the complainants and therefore, the forest officers could not do any activity to defeat that order. In this connection, a notice (Annexure-P/10) may be considered, which was given by the conservator of the Forest Department that the complainants shall be dispossessed from the land, if they would not remove their possession from the forest land within 15 days. The notice was given soon after the incident of the forest crime. The Forest Department was the party in the civil suit as well as in the appeal therefore, the officers of the Forest Department had knowledge of the stay order passed by the Single Bench of this Court and hence, they could not dispossess the complainants from the land. It was for the applicants to register a forest crime but in doing so, they were not competent to assault the respondent Nos. 1-A and 1-B or to destroy the valuable machinery of the complainants. They could visit the crasher machine premises according to the forest laws but they could not remain present at the spot when the activity turned into a crime. Under such circumstances, looking at the photographs submitted by the respondent No. 1-A and 1-B, prima facie, it appears that the applicants and their companions destroyed the various crasher machines relating to stone crasher and therefore prima facie, they committed a crime for which the offence was registered. At present, if they registered a forest crime against the complainants then, looking at their activities and the stay order passed by the Single Bench of this Court, it cannot be said that prima facie, they did not commit any offence and therefore, the complaint registered against the applicants cannot be quashed.
So far as the Provision u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the applicants were competent to register a case against the complainants because there was an encroachment on the forest land but the complainants could not be dispossessed from the land bearing survey no. 5/01 situated at village Noagwan due to the stay order granted by the Single Bench of this Court and their activities to dispossess the complainants was beyond their jurisdiction. They could seize the various articles and materials but they could not destroy the machinery fitted there. The destruction of the machinery indicates that the applicants tried to destroy the machinery so that the crasher could not run and the complainants would leave the place. It would not be proper to discuss that matter at this stage, because it may be a matter of contempt, which can be discussed in a contempt petition, if filed with relation to the stay order passed by the Single Bench of this Court.
Prima facie, it would be apparent that the offences punishable under Sections 427, 452, 323/34 of IPC are made out against the applicants. Considering their duties, the applicants were not entitled to do such a crime and therefore, they went beyond their limits and their duties. In the case of Pukhraj (supra), where the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that the act of abusing and kicking cannot be said to be allowed in a purported exercise of the public duty therefore, for taking the cognizance of the crime, no sanction u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. is required. Under such circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainants against the applicants for the said offences was rightly submitted before the Court below and therefore, no prosecution sanction was required. Similarly, the Hon''ble Apex Court has laid in the case of Choudhury Parveen Sultana (Supra) that the act done in discharge of official duty does not include the cases of abuse of power. Prima facie, the in destruction caused in the crasher plant of the complainants, the abuse of power was done by the applicants and therefore, for registration of the complaint for the offences under Sections 427 or 452 of IPC, no sanction u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. was required. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the applicants do not get any shelter u/s 197 of Cr.P.C., because they crossed their limits of the public duties and abused their powers.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the applicants do not have any shelter u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. Prima facie, a complaint is registered for the crime committed by the applicants and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants did not commit any crime. It would be a matter of evidence to establish whether the applicants had committed any crime or not. However, at this stage, the evidence of the complainants and their witnesses cannot be brushed aside and therefore, the complaint registered against the applicants cannot be quashed. Consequently, the present petition filed by the applicants cannot be accepted and hence, it is hereby dismissed. Since the petition filed by the applicants is disposed off therefore, the stay granted vide order dated 18.5.2011 is automatically vacated. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and to proceed with the case.