Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 369 (RAJ)

Mohan Ram @ Manaram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-03-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1811/2015 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, District Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') against the petitioner. 2. In the present case, the trial court vide order dated 19.11.2015 took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 41, 42/77 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953'). Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 by the Head Constable Sujan Singh of the Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer on 11.10.2015. It is contended that the offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 are non-cognisable offence and as per the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer shall investigate into non-cognisable case without order of Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. It is argued that the FIR in the present case, could not have been registered because there was no order from the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. It is further argued that the trial court, without taking into consideration the above position of law, has illegally proceeded against the petitioner and has taken cognizance against him for the offences punishable under Sections 41, 42/77 of the Act of 1953 vide order dated 19.11.2015. 3. In support of above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Pintu Dey v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 9.4.2015 and Pappu Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 304. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc. 3. In support of above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Pintu Dey v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 9.4.2015 and Pappu Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 304. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc. petition and has argued that as per the provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 1953, any Police Officer has power to arrest any person without warrant against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been involved in any forest offence punishable with imprisonment for one month or up-words and, therefore, the police officer is also competent to register and investigate any FIR against any person in which the complaint is made for commission of offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act of 1953. 5. However, learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the punishment provided under Sections 42 and 77 of the Act of 1953 are less than 3 years, therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 42 and 77 of the Act of 1953 are non-cognisable offences. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 7. Sub-section (2) of section 155 of CrPC reads as under: "(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognisable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial." 8. Part-II of Schedule-I of CrPC reads as under: "II – Classification of offences Against other Laws Offence Cognisable or Non-cognisable Bailable or Non-bailable By what Court triable If punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years Cognisable Non-bailable Court of Session If punishable with imprisonment for 3 years, and upwards but not more than 7 years Cognisable Non-bailable Magistrate of the first class If punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only. As held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Non-cognisable Bailable Any Magistrate 9. As held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Non-cognisable Bailable Any Magistrate 9. The punishment provided in Sections 42 and 77 of the Act of 1953 is up-to 6 months or fine or both and one month or fine or both respectively and, therefore, as per Part II of Schedule-I of Cr.P.C, the said offences are non-cognisable offences and as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C., no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognisable case without an order of Magistrate. 10. Admittedly, the FIR No.152/2015 was lodged at Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer against the petitioner without there being any order of Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. 11. In view of above discussions, the action of registration of impugned FIR against the petitioner without there being any order of Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial, is violative of Sub Section (2) of Section 55 of Cr.P.C. and the consequent order of the trial court taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 is also bad in the eye of law. 12. Resultantly this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order of taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 19.11.2015 in Criminal Case No.1811/2015 is quashed. The impugned FIR No.152/2015 of Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer is also quashed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.