Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 522 (JHR)

MALA JHA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2002-04-24

DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD

body2002
Judgment : DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD. J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 14/9/2001, whereby and where finder the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ranchi took cognizance for the offence under Sections 33, 62 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act in connection with Forest Case No. 88 of 2001 (T. R. No. 753 of 2002 ). ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, as stated that one prosecution report was lodged by one Madan Mohan Singh. Forest Guard before the Range Forest Officer. Ranchi alleging that he found during enquiry that in Barhi P. F. Plot No. 674 one dilapidated room was repaired and rest of land of said plot was ploughed for the purpose of nursery business. Then he prepared a trace map of plot No. 674 area 2. 90 acres of which an area of 2. 60 acres of forest land has been encroached and the rest of 30 decimal of forest land in south is left out. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner came and told him that the land of plot No. 674 belonged to her and she has got the documents for the ownership of the land but no any documents was shown to him at that time. Accordingly, the case was lodged and the prosecution report thereof was also submitted. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that no case under sections 33, 62 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act is made out as well as no notification as required under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act has been published and as such the offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act cannot be alleged in absence of the said notification. It is further argued that the petitioner is the owner of said plot No. 674 which was purchased by the petitioner by registered deed and actually the petitionerts husband had purchased 2. 44 acres of find of plot No. 674 by virtue of registered sale deed in the year 1991, which will be evident from Annexure 2 and the name of the husband of the petitioner has also been mutated in/the Anchal Office, vide Mutation. Case No. 413-R-27 of 199192. It is further submitted that one Janak Singh had sold 3. 44 acres of find of plot No. 674 by virtue of registered sale deed in the year 1991, which will be evident from Annexure 2 and the name of the husband of the petitioner has also been mutated in/the Anchal Office, vide Mutation. Case No. 413-R-27 of 199192. It is further submitted that one Janak Singh had sold 3. 50 acres of land of plot No. 664 and 674 of Khat a No. 153 in favour of Shri Deb Narayan Mallick, the vendor of the petitioners husband by virtue of registered sale deed dated 30/3/1982 for a valuable consideration and the petitioner has been coming in peaceful possession over the said land after the purchase as well as the allegation as made out is purely of civil nature. It is further argued that petitioners husband has also filed a Title Suit No. 64 of 2002 in the Court of Sub Judge Cut Ranch, which is pending and the petitioner has got title and possession over the said land and as such the entire criminal proceedings is fit to be quashed. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended before me that the petitioners husband is actually not the owner of the said area of the land of plot. No. 674 rather the petitioner extended the land encroaching upon the land of the forest department as well as prior approval of Central Government before carrying any activity of the forest land is mandatory and no such approval is available to the petitioner. But he conceded in course of argument that it is true that the petitioner has purchased some lands there by virtue of registered sale deed. He also submitted that the encroached land is duly notified as forest land and the plot No 674 area 2. 90 acres belonged to the forest department and not to the petitioner. ( 5 ) NO any notification whatsoever has been produced from the side of the Forest Department. Apparently, the petitioner filed a title suit, which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge, Ranchi. It is also apparent that petitioner had purchased the land in the year 1991 by virtue of registered sale deed and his vendor said to have purchased the said land from rightful owner in the year 1982 through registered sale deed. Apparently, the petitioner filed a title suit, which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge, Ranchi. It is also apparent that petitioner had purchased the land in the year 1991 by virtue of registered sale deed and his vendor said to have purchased the said land from rightful owner in the year 1982 through registered sale deed. Thus, apparently, the allegation as made out appears to be of civil nature. The title suit is also pending in the competent court where title and possession, both will be considered and decided after going through the documents produced from both side. ( 6 ) IN such circumstances, in my view, the continuation of the criminal proceedings in such type of cases will clearly be an abuse of the process of the Court. In the result, I find merit in this application which is accordingly allowed. The entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 14/9/2001 is, hereby quashed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .