Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shokin Khan vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 27 April, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR.
..
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5256 / 2016.
Shokin Khan son of Banne Khan, by Caste Mev, Resident of
Jestika, Police Station Kishangarh Bas District Alwar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh, PP.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Order
26/04/2017
BY THE COURT:
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.181/2013 registered with Police Station - Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (for short "Act of 1953").
2. It is stated that police seized the vehicle carrying forest produce. The FIR was registered for offence under sections 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. The offence is not punishable beyond a period of three years thus, FIR is not (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5256/2016] sustainable. The offence under section 41 of the Rajasthan Forest Act is non-cognizable thus, investigating agency cannot proceed with the FIR. The prayer is to drop the proceedings by quashing impugned FIR.
3. Be that as it may, FIR has been registered for the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act of 1953. Section 41 of the Act gives power to the State Government to make rules to regulate transit of forest produce and Section 42 provides for penalty for breach of rules made under section 41. Section 42 of the Act, 1953 is reproduced here as under :-
42.Penalty for breach of rules made under section 41-
(1) Any person who contravenes the provisions of the rules made under section 41 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees or with both.
(2) In case where the offence under sub-section(1) is committed after sunset and before sunrise or after preparation for resistance to lawful authority or where the offender has been previously convicted of a like offence the penalties shall be double of those mentioned in sub- section(1)."
4. Schedule - II of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 giving classification of offences qua other laws mentions that the offence punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only will be tried as non-cognizable offence.
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-5256/2016]
5. Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under -
"155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.- (1). ----------------------
(2). No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial."
6. Thus, it is apparent that offence under Section 41/42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 is non-cognizable offence and petitioner can only be prosecuted by filing a complaint by the authorised/competent Officer. No FIR in the present case, could have been registered. Further, Police Officer concerned has not obtained permission from the Magistrate concerned for investigation of the offence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mahendra Vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.108/2016) decided on 28.09.2016 whereby in identical controversy, the FIR as well as the consequential charge-sheet was quashed while giving liberty to the prescribed authority for filing the complaint in accordance with law.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-5256/2016]
8. In view of the above, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR No. 181/2013 registered with Police Station - Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar is quashed along with all subsequent proceedings. However, liberty is granted to the competent authorised Officer to file a complaint in accordance with the provisions of law, if it is not barred by limitation.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/48