Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 554 (RAJ)

Samsu v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-02

M.N.BHANDARI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal misc. petition, a prayer is made to quash the FIR bearing No.22/2012 registered at Police Station Chopanki, district Alwar for offence under Section 379 of IPC. It is submitted that if the allegations made in the FIR are considered, the offence thereupon can be made under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (for short "Act of 1953") and cannot be under the IPC. It is by overlapping two different allegation that FIR has been registered for the offence under the Act of 1953 and at the same time, under the IPC. When the petitioner alleged to have committed offence under Sections 41 & 42 of the Act of 1953, Section 379 of IPC cannot come in picture for the same event and if, the offence is made out under Section 379 of IPC, then cannot be under the Act of 1953, thus the FIR deserves to be quashed. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 3. I have considered the submissions and find that FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences under the Act of 1953, IPC, Mines and Minerals Concession Rules (for short "MMCR) and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short "PDPP Act") and under Section 379 of IPC. 4. The only argument raised is in regard to Sections 41 & 42 of the Act of 1953 where the offence can be made out if one takes away forest produce without authority and permission. Once, the aforesaid offence is made out, it cannot be under Section 379 of IPC. 5. I find that after reporting of the incidence, the FIR was registered by the Police and finding offence under the various provisions of law, i.e., under the Act of 1953, IPC, MMCR and PDPP Act. It would be subject matter of investigation as to whether offence is made out under any of the provisions, for which, FIR is registered. The offence under Section 379 of IPC is not the same, as provided under Sections 41 & 42 of the Act of 1953. Section 41 refers for authorisation to take forest produce and violation thereof is punishable under Section 42 of the Act of 1953. It is necessary to clarify that so far as Section 379 of IPC is concerned, punishment is on account of theft. Section 41 refers for authorisation to take forest produce and violation thereof is punishable under Section 42 of the Act of 1953. It is necessary to clarify that so far as Section 379 of IPC is concerned, punishment is on account of theft. It cannot be said to be a case of registration of FIR for offence overlapping under different Acts and Rules. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing of FIR cannot be accepted at this stage because after registration of FIR, investigation would disclose as to whether offence is made out or not and if, it is made out, then under what provisions. It is not a case where FIR has been challenged with a prayer to quash it entirely but in part. Meaning thereby, the petitioner has not challenged the registration of FIR for other offences. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the FIR would still remain against the petitioner, thus I am unable to accept the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for challenge the FIR. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed so as the stay application, however, the Police is directed to draw proper conclusions after completing the investigation.Petition Dismissed. *******