JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal assisted by Mr. D.K. Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 3192 of 2019 arising out of Offence Report No. 003572, dated 15.10.2019, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. On the basis of offence report of the Forest Guard Santosh Kumar, Ghorabandha Sub-Area vide offence report no. 003572 dated 15.10.2019, in which the protected forest of Luabasa, illegally broken the pillar, damaged the trees and constructed Sauchalaya (Latrine Room) and on the basis of the aforesaid offence report, an enquiry was conducted by the complainant, Vanpal In-charge, Bhilaipahari Campus, with Forest Guard on 16.10.2019 and found that 4’ x 4’ Shouchalaya and road has been constructed by the petitioner. It has also been alleged that the petitioner is the resident of Gowala Basti, Ghorabandha, P.S. Govindpur, Jamshedpur, and on tallied with the Luabasa Protected Forest and a NACSA was prepared regarding Plot No. 31, 69 and 01 in which road and Shouchalaya has been constructed, which is the protected notified area, vide notification no. C/P.F.10146/52- 5800R dated 27.12.1952 and accordingly the accused committed an offence under Indian Forest Act, 1927 and State Amendment (Bihar Amendment Forest Act, 1990) under Sections 33 and 52 of the Forest Protected Act, 1980, sub-section 2 and accordingly the present case has been instituted against the petitioner. 4. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been alleged that washroom has been constructed in protected notified area of forest, but the said washroom has been constructed in plot no. 51 which is the raiyati land of the present petitioner and the said washroom is an old one and it has been wrongly shown in Plot No. 31 and both Plot No. 51 and 31 are adjacent to each other. Plot Nos. 01 and 69 are situated far from Plot No. 31. He further submits that the petitioner has no concern with those lands except Plot No. 51. He also submits that the learned court has taken the cognizance which is a mechanical order. Plot Nos. 01 and 69 are situated far from Plot No. 31. He further submits that the petitioner has no concern with those lands except Plot No. 51. He also submits that the learned court has taken the cognizance which is a mechanical order. He further submits that Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act meant for confiscation of vehicle or property, however the learned court has taken cognizance under Section 52 of the said Act. 5. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. The Court has perused the impugned order dated 05.11.2019 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. The learned court has taken cognizance under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, which is meant for confiscation of vehicle and that is not penal section. What are the materials against the petitioner, has not been disclosed in the cognizance order. There is no doubt that in the order taking cognizance, detailed order is not required, however in the instant case what are the prima-facie materials against the petitioner, is required to be disclosed in the impugned order, which is lacking in the case in hand. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 3192 of 2019 arising out of Offence Report No. 003572, dated 15.10.2019, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned concerned court to pass fresh order, in accordance with law. 7. Consequently, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.