Ram Naresh vs State of M.P.

S.L. Jain, J.

Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings initiated against him in the court of JMFC Kotma, District Shahdol on the basis of POR No. 122/03.

The facts giving rise to the application are that: Respondent No. 2 Van Kshetrapal, Kotma, District Shahdol registered a POR No. 122/03 on 17-2-2003 Misc. Cri. Case No. 3921 of 2003 decided on 11-7-2005. (Jabalpur) against the applicant and other co accused alleging that the applicant being an employee of the forest department and holding a responsible post had misused his power by issuing a certificate to the co accused persons to cultivate on the reserved land for his personal gain and committed offences punishable u/s 26(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, u/s 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and u/s 3/4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1984").

On the basis of this POR, a challan was filed in the court of JMFC, Kotma. On 10-6-2003 some of the co accused appeared before the Court. The applicant instead of appearing before the court of JMFC has filed this petition for quashing the POR.

I have heard Shri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri D. K. Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Asim Dixit, learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for applicant vehemently argued that the forest officer could not have investigated and filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1984. Offence under these sections could have been investigated in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure only. The forest officer has no right to investigate the offence under the Act unless he is authorised by the Magistrate for this purpose. The forest officer could not have filed the charge-sheet directly in the court. The Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under the Act of 1984.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be exercised in a case where the applicant had the efficacious remedy by moving the Magistrate u/s 245, Criminal Procedure Code.

If there was any grievance, the applicant was at liberty to file an appropriate application before the Magistrate. When the complaint/charge-sheet has already been submitted and it is at the stage of consideration as to whether cognizance can be taken or not, the High Court u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code should not play the role of a Magistrate and scrutinize the documents.

When alternative and appropriate forum is available, power of High Court u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code should not be invoked. Even if the contention of the applicant that investigation made by Forest Officer for an offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1984 is null and void and the Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of the matter under that Act, at least for taking the cognizance for the offence u/s 26(1) of the Indian Forest Act and u/s 2 of the Forest Conservation Act 1980, there is no bar for taking a cognizance, therefore, the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall be at liberty to move an application u/s 245, Criminal Procedure Code claiming that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance or that the applicant is otherwise liable to be discharged on the basis of material on record.