JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide B.F. No.41 of 2012 involving the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act , 1927; ( though because of printing error, the same has been mentioned at several places in this Writ Petition (Cr.) as under Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code) and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act , 1980 (which has wrongly been printed at several places in this Writ Petition (Cr.) as Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Regulation, 1980). 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons, contrary to the prohibitions of Section 30 of the said Indian Forest Act , 1927 cleared the protected forest land and were constructing a house over the same but on seeing the forest officials they fled away. There is also allegation against the petitioner of contravening Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act , 1980 by using the protected forest land for non-forest purpose, like constructing a house thereon. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the place of occurrence land is not a forest land. It is next submitted that the ancestors of the petitioner filed Original Suit in the court of Munsif, Purulia vide Title Suit No.140 of 1954 and the same was disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 24.07.1956. The learned Munsif protected the right of the petitioner to control, manage and possess the disputed property which were trees and shrubs standing on several plots of land. It is next submitted that the place of occurrence land belongs to the Writ Petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) and submits that the said judgment in Title Suit No.140 of 1954, relates to the right of the petitioner to control, manage and possess the trees only and by no stretch of imagination; control, manage and possess the trees will include the construction of house inside the protected forest area; with cement and bricks. It is next submitted that thus, the said judgment of Munsif, Purulia is irrelevant so far as this case is concerned and there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 read with 3 A of the Forest Conservation Act , 1980. Learned counsel for the respondent- State draws the attention of this Court towards the order dated 16.06.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1232 of 1993 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi and submits that in para-7 of thereof, the copy of which is available at page-67, it has categorically been inter alia mentioned by the High Court that the plot No.15 of village- Bandhgora of Thana No.35, District- Dhanbad (now Bokaro) is protected forest by the State Forest Department vide Notification No.c/f-17014/58/1429 (R). So, in view of the subsequent notification, the said earlier judgment of the court of Munsif, Purulia in Title Suit No.140 of 1954, also has no relevance and as undisputedly, the place of occurrence land has been declared as protected forest land, the petitioner has no right to carry out any construction over the land inside the protected forest nor to use the land for any purpose other than the forest activity. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that as undisputedly the place of occurrence land has been declared as forest land by the State Forest Department vide Notification No.c/f-17014/58/1429 (R) as has been observed in the order dated 16.06.2003 by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi and there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of clearing the forest area for using the same for any purpose other than the forest activity, this Court is of the considered view that if the contents of the complaint filed against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, the offence for which the complaint has been filed, is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceedings of B.F. No.41 of 2012, as prayed for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition (Cr.). 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, is dismissed. 8. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceedings of B.F. No.41 of 2012, as prayed for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition (Cr.). 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, is dismissed. 8. In view of disposal of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), the interim order, if any, granted earlier, is vacated. 9. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.