Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kulwant Rai vs State & Anr on 21 August, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2189 / 2013
Kulwant Rai S/o Shri Sohan Lal by caste Agarwal, resident of Ward
No.7, Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Satya Narayan S/o Kartar Chand by caste Agarwal, resident of
Ward No.9, Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RDSS Kharlia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit PP for the State.
Mr. DS Gharsana.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 21/08/2017
1. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of entire proceedings arising out of FIR No.44/2013 registered at Police Station Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offence under Sections 447, 379 of IPC and Section 41/42 of Forest Act.
2. The allegation was that on 22.02.2013 at about 12.15 p.m. Satya Narayan submitted a written report claiming on his land situated at Sector-2 of Ward No.19 at Sadulshahar, the Sheesham tree was cut by the present petitioner and stolen on 19.02.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to this Court to the numerous FIRs lodged by the present complainant but due to their mutual dispute and including (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2189/2013] civil litigation, the same were managed by the present complainant on account of revengeful attitude.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown Section 2(4), whereby the forest produce has been defined and the definition reads as follows:
(4) "forest produce" includes-
(a) the following whether found in, or brought from a forest or not, that is to say:-
timber, charcoal, caoutchtoue, catechu, wood- oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds and myra, myrabolams, and
(b) the following when found in, or brought from, a forest, that is to say:-
(I) tress and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of tress.
(ii) plants not being tress (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts of produce of such plants.
(iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts of produce of animals, and
(iv) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including lime stone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries)"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the section pertaining to the forest produce are Sections 41 & 42, which have been invoked. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out the definition of the forest produce (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2189/2013] pertaining to the tree can be invoked only when the same is brought from the forest, whereas in the present case it is apparent that it is market with shops on either sides, therefore, the tree does not include the forest produce and therefore, the provisions of under Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 can not be continued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further made out a case that this is a revengeful attitude of the complainant as such that he has been embroiled in multiple litigation and all efforts have been made to get him stuck in the litigation.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant shown are not attributed to the present complainant and it is a wishful think that the complaints are at the instance of the present complainant.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that since the definition of forest produce does not include a tree in the marked place as envisaged under Section 2(4) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and therefore, the proceedings of lawful principle cannot continue against the present petitioner under the Forest Act. However, regarding the 379, the charge-sheet has already been filed and at this stage it will be inappropriate to make any indulgence regarding the Section 447 and 379 of IPC.
7. The petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.222/2013 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Sadulshahar arising out of FIR No.44/2013, registered at Police Station Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 41 and 42 of (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2189/2013] Forest Act are quashed and set aside. As far as the Section 447 and 379 of IPC are concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take up all the issues at appropriate stage.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. ck