Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 29.08.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:7792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.308 of 2024
Date of Decision: 29.08.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
.
Moti Ram and Another
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
.......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr.
Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General,
r with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent/State.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made on behalf of petitioners for quashing of FIR No.30 of 2012, dated 16.02.2012, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (for short, 'the Act') as well as order dated 16.03.2024, whereby charge came to be framed against petitioners under Section 51 of the Act.
2. Precisely the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the grounds of petition and further canvassed by Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioners is that since complaint, on the basis of which FIR sought to be quashed came to be ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 20:29:44 :::CIS 2024:HHC:7792 2 instituted, was not lodged by authorized Officer, as defined under Section 55 of the Act, no cognizance could have been taken by the Court, which subsequently on the basis of final report submitted by .
Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. proceeded to frame charge against the petitioners under Section 51 of the Act.
3. While referring to Section 55 of the Act, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently argued that neither Ranger of the Forest Department, nor Police was competent to file complaint under the Act, and as such, Court below otherwise could not have taken cognizance of complaint or FIR, lodged at the behest of Range Officer and Police.
4. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent/State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that in the case at hand, complaint under Sections 40, 41, 49(a), 51, 52 and 55 of the Act was submitted to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, by the Range Forest Officer, Mandi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Bare perusal of complaint, as detailed hereinabove, (Annexure R-1) further reveals that initially FIR bearing No.30 of 2012 dated 16.02.2012 under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, was registered at Police Station Sadar, which subsequently sent the matter to Range Officer for filing the complaint in the competent Court of law.
::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 20:29:44 :::CIS
2024:HHC:7792 3
5. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to Section 55(b) of the Act, states that as per Section 55 of the Act, officers, as detailed in aforesaid provision of law, can file .
complaint under the Act, but Section 55(b) empowers State Government to authorize officers, other than the officers, as detailed in Section 55 of the Act, for filing complaint under the Act.
6. While referring to the Notifications dated 24.05.2002 and 02.09.2011 issued by Principal Secretary (Forest) and Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that Deputy Conservators of Forest, Assistant Conservators of Forests, Range Officers of Forest Department and all the officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police enrolled in Himachal Pradesh Police Department have been authorized to file complaints in the Court of law in respect of offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act read with Section 34 of IPC. He states that since cognizance came to be taken by the competent Court of law, on the complaint filed by the Range Officer, who is otherwise authorized by the State Government, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below while framing Charge under Section 51 of the Act, against the petitioners. He further states that since FIR sought to be quashed has culminated in complaint filed by Range Officer and complaint has been filed by competent officer, as provided under Section 55 of the ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 20:29:44 :::CIS 2024:HHC:7792 4 Act, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR, is otherwise not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused .
other material adduced on record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition, as such, no interference is called for.
8. Before ascertaining the correctness of rival submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties, it would be apt to take note of Section 55 of the Act, which reads as under:
"55. Cognizance of offences. - No Court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than -
(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or (aa) Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A; or (ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or (ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or]
(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government; or (bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38-J; or
(c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid."
9. Though, careful perusal of aforesaid provision of law suggests that officers, as detailed in aforesaid provision of law, are ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 20:29:44 :::CIS 2024:HHC:7792 5 entitled to file complaint under the Act and Court would take cognizance of such complaint only, which is filed/maintained by officers, as detailed in aforesaid provision of law. Though, name of .
Range Officer does not find mention in the aforesaid provision of law, but perusal of Notification dated 24.05.2002 made available to this Court clearly reveals that Range Officer has been authorized by State of Himachal Pradesh in terms of Section 55(b) of the Act to lodge complaint in the competent Court of law, qua violation of various provisions of the Act.
10. Notification, as taken note hereinabove, has been specifically issued under Section 55(b) of the Act by Principal Secretary (Forest) to Government of Himachal Pradesh, thereby authorizing Deputy Conservators of Forest, Assistant Conservators of Forests and Range Officers of Forest Department to file complaints in respect of offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act read with Section 34 of IPC. Another Notification dated 02.09.2011 further reveals that Government of Himachal Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55(b) of the Act, has also authorized all the officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police enrolled in Himachal Pradesh Police Department to file complaints in the Court of law in respect of offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act read with Section 34 of IPC.
::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 20:29:44 :::CIS
2024:HHC:7792 6
11. Having taken note of aforesaid Notifications, which have been issued in terms of Section 55(b) of the Act, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court while taking cognizance of .
complaint filed by the Range Officer. Admittedly, in the case at hand, before institution of complaint, if any, by Range Officer, Police had lodged FIR bearing No.30 of 2012, but after completion of investigation, Police submitted the report to the Range Officer, enabling him to file complaint before the competent Court of law. Once, Range Officer, after having received investigation, complete in all respect in FIR, as detailed hereinabove, proceeded to lodge complaint before the competent Court of law, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR, which otherwise stand merged/culminated in complaint, cannot be accepted.
12. At this stage, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the judgment dated 16th September, 2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No.136 of 2022, titled Sher Singh and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, to state that in similar facts and circumstances, where Police had lodged FIR and presented Challan in the competent Court of law, proceeded to quash the FIR on the ground that Police officer was not competent to lodge FIR in terms of Section 55 of the Act. Though, having perused aforesaid judgment, this Court finds that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, having taken note of the ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 20:29:44 :::CIS 2024:HHC:7792 7 fact that Court was not competent to take cognizance of FIR/Challan, if any, filed by Police Officer as provided under Section 55 of the Act, proceeded to quash the FIR, but it appears that at the time of passing .
aforesaid judgment, factum with regard to issuance of Notification by the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated 2 nd September, 2011, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55(b) of the Act, was not brought to the notice of the Court. As has been taken note hereinabove, Section 55(b) of the Act empowers the State Government to issue notification, thereby authorizing officers, other than, as detailed in Section 55(b), to lodge complaint. Had parties in that case brought aforesaid Notification to the notice of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, probably it would not have proceeded to quash the complaint on the ground, as detailed hereinabove.
13. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion, as made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
August 29, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Rajeev Raturi) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2024 20:29:44 :::CIS