Jharkhand High Court
Bideshi Bhuiyan Alias Videshi Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 1 May, 2023
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022
------
Bideshi Bhuiyan Alias Videshi Bhuiyan, aged 75 years, son of Late Sanichar Bhuiyan, Resident of Village Jhikatiya, P.O. & P.S. Hunterganj, District- Chatra. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the Complaint (U.C.) Case No.862 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 3A of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the offence of breaking of into and clearing the protected forest land. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed Original Suit No.134 of 2018 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Chatra inter alia praying for right, title, interest and possession over the suit land but 1 Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022 the description of the suit land has not been mentioned in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant upon receipt of the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the copy of which has not been annexed with this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, has filed his Complaint (U.C.) Case No.862 of 2018. It is next submitted that the petitioner and his ancestors are in possession of the suit land for more than ninety years.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others reported in [2007] 10 SCR 847 paragraph-45 of which reads as under:-
"45. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressure the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained."
And submits that this criminal prosecution has been used as an instrument of harassment for seeking private vendetta; with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioner who is the accused of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Brajesh Kumar Ray & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in MANU/JH/0305/2005 wherein in the facts of that case, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed a direction to the parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession, title and construction, 2 Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022 the co-ordinate Bench set aside the criminal proceeding in respect of the same subject matter of the dispute.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R. S. Singh @ Rama Shankar Singh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in Cr.M.P. No.1653 of 2009 with other allied cases dated 31.07.2010 wherein in the facts of that case, the right and title on the basis of registered sale-deed was obtained by the accused persons from the Raiyats and there was genuine dispute over right and title, the co-ordinate Bench quashed the criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed.
7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the Complaint (U.C.) Case No.862 of 2018, as prayed for by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not filed any document whatsoever to show his right, title and interest over the suit land in respect of which he has filed the suit nor is there any order of injunction or status quo passed in his favour as was passed by the apex court in the case of Brajesh Kumar Ray & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others (supra). It is next submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 3 A of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the said fact remains undisputed. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention 3 Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022 here that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Brajesh Kumar Ray & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) and R. S. Singh @ Rama Shankar Singh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra). There is no order of status quo or injunction passed in any civil proceeding involving the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any chit of paper regarding his right, title and interest over the land which he claims to be of his. There is specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 3 (A) of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It is a settled principle of law that court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether an evidence is reliable or not in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as that would be the function of the trial court as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691.
9. It is also a settled principle of law that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.
10. So far as the judgment of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others (supra) is concerned, the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of that case as that case was a private dispute between the two parties.
11. Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 envisage punishment for any person who breaks up or clears for cultivation or any other purpose any land in any protected forest; contrary to any prohibition under section 30 of the said Act. There is no dispute that the petitioner has committed the said offence 4 Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022 punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, if the defence of the petitioner that the place of occurrence land belongs to him, is not considered. Similarly, section 3A of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 envisages punishment for a person who contravenes or abets the contravention of any of the provisions of section 2 of the said Act. Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 inter alia prohibits use of forest land for non-forest purpose. Thus there is no dispute also that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under section 3 A of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, either. There is no document put forth by the petitioner let alone any unimpeachable document regarding the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the place of occurrence land. Otherwise also, it is a settled principle of law that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not embark upon an enquiry the veracity of the evidence which is basically the defence of the accused person of the case, as that would be the job of the trial court.
12. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court mere filing of a title suit, without any order of injunction or status quo being passed, certainly cannot be used as a shield by the plaintiff of a civil suit against any criminal prosecution, even if, the party to a suit commits a criminal wrong.
13. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the criminal case against the petitioner merely because he has filed a civil suit and thus this is not a fit case to quash the Complaint (U.C.) Case No.862 of 2018, as prayed for by the petitioner.
5 Cr. M.P. No.4382 of 2022
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01st of May, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 6