IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P.No.355 of 2009.
1. Md. Ansari
2. Zaseer Ansari ... ... Petitioners.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Range officer, Chainpur Forest Range, Kuju ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
------
For the Petitioner: M/s. Manoj Kumar, S. K. Pandey
For the Respondents: A.P.P.
------
Reserved on: 25.01.2010 Pronounced on: 2nd February, 2010
O R D E R
M. Y. Eqbal, J. By this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have
prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with
G.Case no.212 of 2005 instituted against the petitioners for the offence
under section 33,66(a) and 63 of the Indian Forest Act pending in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.
2. Petitioners' case is that the aforesaid G. Case No.212/2005 was
instituted on the basis of offence report submitted by one Forest Guard
of Bargaon Forest alleging inter alia that on 3.5.2005 he received secret
confidential information to the effect that several Trucks have entered
inside the forest area. When they entered inside the forest area, then they
heard the sound of several persons and saw that about 150 to 200 people
were indulged in illegal mining and they were loading the coal over the
same trucks. According to the petitioner, he happens to be the owner of
one of the trucks alleged to have been involved in the commission of the
offence. Petitioner contended that although offence report was sent to the
Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same was received on 4.5.2005 but till
3.11.2008
no prosecution report was filed by the prosecution, so that the
Court may take cognizance of the offence. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the maximum punishment for the alleged
offence is 2 years and , therefore, if prosecution report is filed in the
Court after 3 ½ years that would be barred under section 468 Cr.P.C. and
the continuance of offence will be the abuse of process of Court.
3. Petitioners’ own case is that the offence was allegedly committed
on 3.5.2005 and a complaint was sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate on
4.5.2005. A copy of the said complaint sent by the Forest Officer,
Chainpur, Kuju, Ranchi to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has
2
been annexed as Annexure-1 to this application. The said complaint
reads as under: –
“lsok esa]
eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh]
gtkjhckxA
fo”k; vijk/k izfrosnu la0 2443 fn- 3.5.05 lefiZr djus ds laca/k esaA
egk’k;]
lfou; fuosnu iwoZd lwfpr djuk gS fd fnukad 3.5.2005 dks
yxHkx 3 cts izkr% dky Jh ve`r izlkn lko ouj{kh fo’or lwpuk ds
vk/kkj ij fljdk ,oa cnxkao ou Hkze.k vius lg;ksxh ds lkFk djus ds dze
esa lwpuk feyh fd dbZ V~zd taxy {ks= esa ?kqlh gqbZ gSA ouj{kh ou lhek ds
vanj ?kqls rks ik;s fd 50 ls 200 ds djhc etnwj dks;yk mR[kuu esa yx
dj LVkVZ Vz~dksa ij dks;yk ykn jgs gSaA ouj{khx.k dks viuh rjQ vkrs
ns[kdj vfHk;qDr oujf{k;ksa ds lkFk >xM+k djus ij mrk: gks x;s rFkk
xkyh xykSt nsus yxsA la[;k vf/kd gksus ds dkj.k ouj{kh vfHk;qDrksa dks
fxjirkj djus esa vlQy jgsA ijarq bl dze esa ekSdk ikdj ouj{kh }kjk
VkpZ dh jks’kuh esa Vz~d ua- uksV fd;k x;k rRi’pkr ouj{kh }kjk ,d
vijk/k izfrosnu la[;k 2443 fn- 3.5.05 lefiZr fd;k x;kA
vijk/kh dk mDr d`R; Hkkjrh; ou (fcgkj la’kks/ku 1989)
vf/kfu;e 1927 dh /kkjk 33, 63, 66A ,oa ou laj{k.k vf/kfu;e 1980 dh
lqlaxr /kkjkvksa dk mYya/ku gSAS
vr+% Jheku ls vkxzg gS fd vijk/kh ij dM+h ls dM+h dkuquh
dk;ZokbZ fd;k tk;A iw.kZ tkapksijkar tkap izfrosnu mfpr ek/;e ls lefiZr
fd;k tk;sxkA
vkidk fo’oklh]
g/-
4.05.05
ou ifjlj inkf/kdkjh]
pSuiqj] dwuw] jkaphA”
4. On the basis of the said report, a case was instituted and
registered on 4.5.2005 being G. Case No. 212 of 2005. After the institution
and registration, the case was time to time adjourned for submission of
prosecution report. In the aforesaid premises, in my considered opinion,
merely because of non-submission of prosecution report, continuance of
the proceeding cannot be held to be barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
3
5. As noticed above, although the case was instituted on the basis of
complaint as far back as on 4.5.2005 and since then, the proceeding is
continuing for the submission of prosecution report by the complainant.
Even in five years, the complainant has not been able to file prosecution
report and because of that, the petitioners have been harassed for the last
five years. On this ground, in my view, such proceeding may not
continue as continuance of such proceeding shall be the abuse of process
of law.
6/ For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed and the
entire criminal proceeding is quashed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
Raman/A.F.R.