Judgment :- This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed seeking to quash the private complaint filed by the District Forest Officer, Theni, against the petitioners for the alleged offences said to have been committed by them punishable under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 and Section 3(1-A) of the said Act. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this complaint has not been lodged by the Committee as required under section 11 of the said Act and therefore, the same has to be quashed. 3. In answer to the same, the respondent has filed a detailed counter. Admittedly, the complaint has been signed and filed only by the District Forest Officer. In paragraph 10 of the counter, the respondent has stated that the District Forest Officer, Theni Division, being one of the Committee Members has filed this case after getting sanction from the Chairman-cum-District Collector and so, the said complaint is maintainable under law. The said contention is reiterated by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also. 4. I am not able to agree with the said contention of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the following reasons. Section 11 of the Act has to be followed in effect which reads as follows: "... 11. COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 7 except on a complaint in writing of the Committee." 5. The term Committee has been defined under Section 2(a) of the Act which says, "Committee means any Committee constituted under section 2-A and having jurisdiction". The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has produced an order dated 12.04.2006 of the District Collector in ROC No.Y1.8797/96, wherein it is stated that the District Collector, being the Chairman of the Committee has authorised the District Forest Officer to file a private complaint. 6. In my considered opinion, as per the Act, it is only the Committee which is competent to file a private complaint and no court shall take cognizance of a complaint filed by any other person including a person like the complainant in this case. This court had an occasion to consider a similar issue in the case reported in 1991(1)MWN (Criminal) Page 114 (M.S.M.Haneefa and others Vs. The Forest Ranger, Shencottah Range) . This court had an occasion to consider a similar issue in the case reported in 1991(1)MWN (Criminal) Page 114 (M.S.M.Haneefa and others Vs. The Forest Ranger, Shencottah Range) . This court in a similar situation has taken a view that the complaint filed by a person other than the Committee is not maintainable and therefore, this Court was pleased to quash the same. 7. I cannot take a different view in the case on hand. In this case too, the complaint has not been filed by the Committee as required under section 11 of the Act. Therefore, except quashing the case, I do not have any other option. Hence, the case in CC.No.51/96 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, is quashed. But, the Committee is at liberty to file appropriate complaint as required under the Act, if so advised, subject to the provision regarding limitation etc. 8. Thecriminal original petition is allowed.