ft '-X HIGH COURT Or CHHATTISQARH AT BaASFUR CrimiaalMtec. PetitionNo. 158/2008 PBTITIONBRS 1. 2. 3. VERSUS RB8PONDBNT G,L, Dwivedi S/o Shn Brjkishore Dwivedi, aged about 51 years, occupation Assistaat Gteneral Maaager (AGM), M/s Jindal Power Liaiited, Tainnar, Tahsfl Gharghoda, Distdct Raigarh (CG). 0,P. Shanua S/o Shri Ramdhan Shanxia, aged about 43 years^ Occupation Manager of M/s Jmdal Power Limited, Tamnar, Tahsil Gharghoda, Distdct Raigarh (CG), Vijay Ekaafh S/o Shri Eknafh Narayan Bhagwat, aged about 48 yeara, occupation Project Maiiager in L & T Company, Rabo, Tahsil Gharghc^a, District Ra^arh (CG). State of Chhattisgarh Through Porest Range Ofiicer, Taximar, Tahsil Gharghoda, Raigarh (CG). PBTITION UNDBR SBCTION 482 OP THB CODB OF CRIBUNAL PROCEDURB. (8B :HoayMe Mr. T.P.Sliarma^ J.) Present:- Shri N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Kishor Bhaduri^ Additional Advocate General with Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent/State. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 7/7/2009) 1, By fhis petition petitioners have challenged the legalily aiid propnety of fhe order dated 4/3/2008 passed by fhe First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh ia crimiaal revision N0. 133/07 affirDaiiig tlie order dated 8/2/2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, Distdct Raigarh in crimio.al case no. 192/06 whereby Judicial Magistrate Pirst Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh has taken cogxiizaxice of the ojBTence piinishable under Section 63 ( C) offhe Indiaa PorestAct, 1927 ( in short the Act of 1927). ^.." ." ^' -ff'm ^ 2. Learaed couiisel for fhe petitioners submits tiiat the continuance of crumnal proceedmg before fhe Court below woiild amount to abuse of process of the Court on the grouad fhat the prosecution has failed to show and produce aay iota of evidence against the present petitioners relating to fbe offence puaiishable uiider Section 63 of the Indian Porcst Act, 1927 (in short fhe Act of 1927). 3. Shri N.K. ShuMa, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for fhe petitioners and Shri Kishor Bhadiiri, Additional Advocate General wifh Sfari Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent/State are heard, 4, Order impugned aad copy of ofh.er documente are perused. 5, Learaed counsel fi>r fhe petitioners vehemently argued fhat la&d m question or^inally belonging to the Forest Departeient, land was aUotted and diverted by fhe State aad Central Govt. for the purpose of Storage Dam/reservoir, Wheii the M/ s Jiadal Power Limited a Company started construction for rcservoir then it was objected by ftie Forest Department on the ground fhat fliey had destroyed the boundary marks and thercby committed aa offence punishable under Section 63 offhe Act of 1927. 6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners further submits fhat petitioners werc not present at fhe time of aay construction they are not responsibte for aay construction/destruction offtie bouxidaiy wall, Land m questionwas allotted and diverted in favour of the M/s Jmdal Power Limited for construction ofthe Storage Dam/reservoir aad for fhe construction of reservoir, fhe removal of such boiuidary mark was necessaiy. In absence of aay evidence of the commission of fhe offence by fhe petitioners the contiiiuance of criminal proceeding beforc fhe Judicial ^ Magistrate First Class Gharghoda, District Ra^arh would amount to abuse ofthe process offhie Court, 7. On the ofber haad, leamed counsel for fhe State/ respoadent submits tiaat petitioners have challenged fhe order of Judicial Magistrate before fhe revisional Court aad present petition is not mamtaiaable under fhe garb of second revision, 8» This is a petition for quashinent offhe crixninal proceediag iinder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the code) for invokmg fhe provisions of Section 482 of ffaie Code fhe petitioner is reqxiired to show fhat- (i)- to give eflfect to an order under fhe C^de^ (ii) to prevent abuse offhe process ofthe Court, and (ii^ to ofherwise secupe the ends ofjustice fhe interference is necessaiy, 9. In fhie present case coiinsel for the petitioners has submitted fhat peUtioner were not presettt at fhe time of constniction of such reservoir fhe cause titie of the petitioner shows ftiat fhey are responsible Ofiicer/Assistaat General Manager, Manager aad Project Manager of the M/s Jiadal Power Limited. Therefore, petitioners had filed fhe ob^tion before the Judicial Magistrate Pirst Class Grhaa^hoda, District Raigarh ia which they have not alleged that the present petitioners are aot aay way concera with fhe alleged offence but fhey have specificalfy aBeged aad submitted fhat no offence has been made out agamst the petitioners by aUeged construction. Admittedly petitioners or M/s Jmdal Power Linsdted was not permitted to destroy boundary marks of fhe Porest evea such permission was not possible under fhe law but fhe boundary marks were destroyed which is offence imder SectiQn 63 C of the Aot of 1927 <m. fhe basis of inaterial adduced on behatf of fhe prosecution learBed Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, D^tinct Raigarh has taken .< — ^ cognizaiice against fhe petitioners, Leamed Judicial M^istrate First Class, Gharghoda, Distinct Raigarh has not comimtted any iBegaUty and any criminal proceeding pendiag before the JudicM Magistrate Fw&t Class, Ghai^hoda, Distiact Raj^arh against the petitioners would aot amount to abuse of ttie process of fhe Court. I do not find aoy foroe in tiie petition, Consequently, fhis petition is liable to be dismissed aad it is hereby dismissed, T.P. Sharma Judge ^'