Rao Arif vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 898 of 2009, State v. Pawan u/s 17, 27, 35, 50 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and Section 26 of Forest Act which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar as well as the summoning order dated 17.2.2009 passed by that court.

Facts, in brief, are that on 15.9.2008 at 4.15 pm, petitioner along with other three co-accused were caught red handed with the 29 frames of Teak Wood (Sagaun) by the patrolling police party which they had cut from the forest area of Rajaji National Park. The other three co-accused were arrested on the spot while the petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence after throwing the Sagaun wood. Fard of recovery was prepared on the spot. Thereafter case was lodged against the petitioner and other co-accused in PS Ranipur, Haridwar. After investigation, chalani report was filed against the petitioner and the other co-accused, on the basis of which a case was registered and the summoning order dated 17.2.2009 was issued against the petitioner and the other co-accused.

Having considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner; perusal of the recovery memo and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections is made out. The dispute involves factual questions which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record.

Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of trial court. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court.

The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine.

Interim order dated 5.5.2009 stands vacated.