Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 269 (UTT)

SUMIT v. D. F. O. KALSI, DEHRADUN

2017-05-02

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash summoning order, the R.C. No. 73/Chou /2015-16, Kalsi Division Dehradun as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 185 of 2016, DFO vs. Baldev & others, under Section 26 of the Forest Act and Sections 333 and 353 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar, Dehradun. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants assailed the final investigation report only to the extent that the Forest Officer has no jurisdiction to investigate the offences under the Indian Penal Code. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the Forest Officer can investigate the offences only under Indian Forest Act, 1927. The description of such offences is given in Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Forest Officer is not authorized to investigate the offences punishable under Sections 333 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hart to deter public servant from his duty) or Section 353 IPC (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), in relation to which final investigation report has been submitted. 3. Prima facie, being satisfied with such submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, this Court directs that whereas the accused-applicants shall face the trial under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, they will not be charged under Sections 333 and 353 IPC in a Criminal Complaint Case filed by the sole respondent. 4. It has been mentioned in the final investigation report that the complaint has already been given to SO, Sahaspur regarding the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 353 IPC committed by the accused persons. It will therefore, be open to the Police authorities concerned to investigate such offences under the Indian Penal Code to bring the same to it’s logical conclusion, in accordance with law. 5. Since present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided without notice to the sole respondent, therefore, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.