JUDGMENT : B.B. Mangalmurti, J. Instant application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24th September, 2007 passed in G. Case No.497 of 2005 corresponding to T.R.No.868 of 2008 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag with respect to petitioner-Mrityunjay Singh @ Mrityunjaiendra Narayan Singh only as the court has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act against this petitioner and other co-accused persons. 2. The short fact of the case is that on the basis of a prosecution report sent by Forest Range Officer, Bhurkunda, Patratu dated 30th October, 2005 with allegation that during patrolling Forest Guard, Bhuneshwar Gope saw about 15 labourers were removing bushes and after cutting Sidha tree and after digging mud and moram, they were constructing road. Seeing the Forest Guard, the labourers escaped then their Gaita, Kudal and other articles were seized as per seizure list prepared. The further allegation in the prosecution report is that after investigation of the place of occurrence, five Sidha trees were cut and about one Kilometer road was constructed after removing bushes. This road was being constructed under the District Scheme with the help of Revenue Clerk, Junior Engineer and the Agent of the village. Accordingly, prosecution report under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act was submitted for cutting of trees, bushes and digging mud for construction of road within the Debaria and Ghaghra Forest where the name of the petitioner find place at serial no.2. 3. After submission of prosecution report, the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Clerk of Ranchi range where the work was being done and this petitioner is not involved in the commission of offence. He further submitted that in a mechanical manner without any material against the petitioner, the cognizance was taken. He also submitted that in the case of Nupur Talwar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi & Anr. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 the Magistrate is required to exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the facts and materials before him. He also submitted that in the case of Nupur Talwar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi & Anr. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 the Magistrate is required to exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the facts and materials before him. In doing so, the Magistrate is not bound by opinion of the Investigating Officer and he is competent to exercise his discretion irrespective of the views expressed by the Police in its report and may prima facie find out whether the offence has been made out or not. At the stage of taking cognizance of offence, the court has only to see whether prima facie there are reasons for issuing the process and whether the ingredients of the offence are there on record. He also relied on a decision of this Court relating to Jagdish Pandit Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2015(2) JBCJ 225 and submitted that the Magistrate has assigned no reasons while taking cognizance and the impugned order was set aside. In similar situation, cognizance of this petitioner have been taken without assigning any reason. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that the prosecution report prepared by the Forest Beat Officer, Bhurkunda Beat confirmed the allegation made in the offence report also. The construction was made upon Plot Nos.443, 457 and 120 of Jarad, Ghaghra Protected Forest and the same is notified as Protected Forest and cutting and clearing bushes, forest trees and excavation of stones and carrying out non forestry work upon Protected Forest is punishable under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and under Forest Conservation Act. The damage caused to the Forest was estimated to Rs.29,000/- and 1400 feet road was constructed. He further submitted that though his involvement was found as he was Revenue Karamchari of that area but the Petitioner has not disclosed that at the relevant time where he was posted as Revenue Karamchari. Learned A.P.P. also submitted that in Nupur Talwar case (supra) the court has also held that:- “19. The correctness of the order whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Magistrate, unless it is perverse or based on no material, should be sparingly interfered with. Learned A.P.P. also submitted that in Nupur Talwar case (supra) the court has also held that:- “19. The correctness of the order whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Magistrate, unless it is perverse or based on no material, should be sparingly interfered with. In the instant case, anyone reading the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance, will come to the conclusion that there has been due application of mind by the Magistrate and it is a well-reasoned order. The order of the High Court passed on a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code (not under Section 482) at the instant of Dr. Mrs Nupur Talwar would also show that there has been a proper application of mind and a detailed speaking order has been passed.” In the instant case, anyone reading the order of Magistrate taking cognizance will come to the conclusion that there has been due application of mind by the Magistrate and it is a well reasoned order. Lastly, he submitted that in the case of State of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 it has been held that if on bare perusal of FIR/Complaint, any offence is made out then in that event, quashing of entire criminal proceeding is not permissible. Therefore, no interference in the order of cognizance is required as the cognizance of the offence has been taken. 6. Considering the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the cognizance of the offence has been taken for committing violation of Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act for cutting of trees, removing of bushes, shrubs for construction of roads in Protected Reserve Forest area. Therefore, no interference is required at this stage. 7. In the result, instant application is dismissed. Petition dismissed.