By the Court:- ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 12 of 2017 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 19.02.2017 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ghatshila has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian FOREST ACT , 1927 as amended thereafter and also under Section 66A of BIHAR PUBLIC LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT , 1956 and Bihar Violation XV, 1956 Act. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that inadvertently Section 66A of BIHAR PUBLIC LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT , 1956 and Bihar Violation XV, 1956 Act has been mentioned in the cognizance order dated 19.02.2017 instead of Section 66A of Indian FOREST ACT , 1927 as introduced by amendment of the Indian FOREST ACT , 1927 by Bihar Act 9 of 1990. The same shall be read accordingly. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner contrary to the prohibition under Section 30 of Indian FOREST ACT , 1927 has cleared the protected forest land for constructing a building and has in fact, constructed a building after clearing the protected forest land by encroaching upon the protected forest land. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Forest Officer, Chakulia had informed the father of the petitioner that old plot no. 15 has been released from the forest department and the father of the petitioner may apply to the local block development officer for settlement of the land and accordingly the father of the petitioner applied for settlement of the land. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification regarding declaring the place of occurrence as a protected forest having been claimed to be issued in the year 1956, the same has already lost its force. The petitioner pleaded that to the best of his knowledge, the Government has not complied with the mandatory provision of Sections 29 , 30 and 32 of Indian FOREST ACT , 1927. The petitioner pleaded that to the best of his knowledge, the Government has not complied with the mandatory provision of Sections 29 , 30 and 32 of Indian FOREST ACT , 1927. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision of BIHAR PUBLIC LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT is not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived one; hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Drawing attention of this Court to paragraph no. 12 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the claim of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case, is out and out false. It is next submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that as has been mentioned in the counter affidavit, the land in question is notified as forest land, vide notification dated 07.02.1986. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that B.P.L.E. Case No. 62/2018-19 has also been instituted against the petitioner and the petitioner has already appeared in the said case. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the State-opposite party has denied the claim of the petitioner that the State Government has not complied with the mandatory provision of Sections 29 , 30 and 32 of Indian FOREST ACT . It is then submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that vide the Bihar Act 9 of 1990 by way of State Amendment after Section 66 of Indian FOREST ACT , 1927, the following new Section 66(a) has been inserted which reads as under:- “ 66-A. Eviction of encroachment from Government Forest Land. —(1) Encroachment of Government Forest Land shall be cognizable and non-bailable offence. (2) Any Forest Officer not below the rank of Divisional Forest Officer, if he has reason to believe that the encroachment of Government Forest Land has been done, may evict the encroachment and may use all the powers conferred on Magistrate under the BIHAR PUBLIC LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT , 1956 (Bihar Act XV of 1956).” [Vide Bihar Act 9 of 1990, S. 7 (w.e.f. 10-9-1990)].” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It is then submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that as per Section 66A of Indian FOREST ACT , 1927 as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990, encroachment of forest land is a cognizable and non-bailable offence so, no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of a cognizable offence, under the said Section 66A of Indian FOREST ACT and as undisputedly, the case has been instituted against the petitioner for encroaching the forest land vide B.P.L.E. Case No. 62/2018-19 so by encroachment of forest land, a cognizable offence under Section 66A having been committed, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the same. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there may be some error in the verbatim, while translating the provision of law as mentioned in Hindi in the complaint to the cognizance order which is in English but the same do not warrant quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has encroached upon the forest land and cleared the same for construction of the building. It is the defence of the petitioner that the place of occurrence land is not a forest land and this claim of the petitioner has thoroughly been denied in paragraph no. 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the State- opposite party, in this criminal miscellaneous petition. Undisputedly, Section 66A of the Indian FOREST ACT , 1927 introduced by way of State Amendment by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 makes encroachment of forest land to be a cognizable and non-bailable offence. 9. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. 9. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and at the stage of deciding application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into the appreciation of the evidence of the particular case, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, in view of the discussions made above, if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, certainly, the offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian FOREST ACT , 1927 is prima facie made out against the petitioner besides the offence punishable under Section 66A of Indian FOREST ACT as introduced by Bihar Act 9 of 1990. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 12 of 2017 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 19.02.2017 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.