IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4806 of 2010() ------------------------- OFFENCE NO.3/2007 OF MAYANNUR FOREST RANGE (UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERY) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- C.G.UNNIKRISHNAN KARTHA, S/.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRAL BHAVANAM, KADAYIURUPPU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 311. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MAYANNUR FOREST STATION, MAYANNUR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4806 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in offence No.3 of 2007 of Mayannur Forest Range Office registered for offence punishable under Section 27(a) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, “the Act”) read with Rules 3 and 7 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995 (for short, “the Rules”). Case is that petitioner has unauthorisedly felled 40 teak trees from patta land belonging to the Government against provisions of the said Act and the Rules. Petitioner contends that even as per the averments in Form-I report, no offence as alleged is made out. Petitioner has referred to various documents produced as Annexures along with this petition and requested to quash the proceedings against him on the allegation that the case is an abuse of the process of court. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor who appeared for the respondent. 2. As per Annexure-I, Form-I report petitioner has felled 40 teak trees from the land assigned as per land assignment patta. Place of occurrence described in Annexure-I is within Parvathy Estate. Petitioner contends that he purchased 6.08 and quarter acres in the survey numbers referred to in the petition as per Annexures-II to V, sale deeds at a time when it was barren land Crl.M.C.No.4806/2010 2 and later, he has planted teak trees in the said property. To show the said property is neither reserve forest nor patta land, he has produced Annexures-VI and VII, receipt for payment of basic tax and a location sketch prepared by the Village Officer. He has also a contention that on the strength of the said documents he has availed bank loan and to prove that, Annexures-VIII and IX are produced. Petitioner enquired with the Village Officer under the Right to Information Act as to the nature of property and obtained Annexure-XIII, letter. Learned counsel has contended that no offence under Section 27(a) of the Act is made out since the said offence, going by the said provision can apply only in relation to reserve forest and, any act prohibited by Section 7 of the Act. Learned counsel contends that Section 7 of the Act would apply only in respect of property regarding which notifications are issued under Sections 4 and 19 of the Act and in the meantime, alleged acts are done in the property. No such situation arise in this case since Annexure-XIII would show that properties in question are included neither in reserve forest nor puramboke land. It is contended by learned counsel that there is nothing on record to show that at the time petitioner purchased the properties as per Annexures-II to V, sale deeds or when the Government issued patta, teak trees in question were standing in the property which alone could be the subject matter of the clause in the patta issued to the assignee. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Annexure- X, patta issued in Form No.6 in relation to the land covered by one of the sale deeds among Annexures-II to V and contended that the schedule does not mention any tree. Crl.M.C.No.4806/2010 3 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case is now at the stage of investigation and that final report is not so far filed. According to the learned Public Prosecutor interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) at this stage is not warranted. 4. The Supreme Court has held time and again that interference by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code with respect to the first information report when the matter is at the investigation stage must be sparingly done in exceptional circumstances. In the present case Annexure-X, patta contains conditions of which clause (1) is to that full right over the trees within the grant and specified in the schedule vested in the Government and the assignee is bound to take care of all such trees standing on the land at the time of assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to that. No doubt, in Annexure-X, patta there is no details of trees as on the date of grant. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Rule 3 of the Rules which according to the learned counsel concerned only trees which stood as on the date when patta was issued. 5. I am not persuaded to think that having regard to the nature of allegations made by petitioner a detailed investigation is required at this stage as to the sustainability of the allegations in the FIR since the matter is at the stage of investigation. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to look into all relevant matters and find whether any offence is made out. Certainly, if all or Crl.M.C.No.4806/2010 4 any of the offences reported in Annexure-I, Form-I report is made out, Investigating Officer has to file a report in that line. I am not persuaded to think that this is one of the exceptional cases where interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Code is required to quash Form-I report and stop all further proceedings. Though learned counsel has invited my attention to Annexure-XI, order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.395 of 2009 I must bear in mind that it was in relation to a different matter with different set of facts. In the circumstances I am not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage. But, I make it clear that this order will not prevent the right of petitioner to challenge the final report if any filed against him on appropriate grounds as provided under law. Petition is disposed of with the above observation. Crl.M.A.No.7788 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks