•'•..^,f^yu\^\f^ iWVE' ^l BEFORE TME HON'BLE HIGH COURt OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.') CR.M. P. N0. S^^/2011 PETITIONER y.R.Ho ' ^....... • ^•W-:-^'1 J^ s*'"'^"^ Krishna Kumar Gafciet, aged Bbout 30 years, son of Shri Labhorai-n, Member Qf Zila Panelaayat - Janjgir-Champa, (Circle No. T6) resident of - Devri, Police Station - Sakti, Districf - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / ^ ^^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department 6f Home Affairs, DKS Bhawan, Rafpur (CG) 2. Director Genecal Qf Police, Police Mead Quarter- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) 4. Shri Anand Chhabra, aged about 38 years, son 6f not known, Superintendent of Police, Distt. Janjgir-Ghampa. 5. Smt. Shalini Raina, aged about 35 years, wife of Sftri Anand ChhabFay District Forest Officer, Distt. 3anjgir-Champa (CG) 6. Station House Officer, Police Station - Sakti, Distt. Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) IK^ ^tt^iSi^^ "^^'^S^^^^^B^S^^g^^S^?'1 i a 7. Shri Hanuman Singh Kshatri, aged about 59 years, son of - not known, Deputy Ranger, . Forest Range •- Sakti, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1973 ^ Krishna Kumar Gabei State of Chhattisaarh and oihers Pf^sent; - Shfi A.N.Shskts, counsel 'for the petitionef "ytn 3 This petrtion has been fiied by the petitioner for quashin.g of FtR dated 21/02/2011 (Annexure P/1). 2. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that FiR has been iodged against the petitioner and other persons making faise ailegafions of commission of offence under Section 186, 353, 2S4, 506 as also under Section 392/34 IPC. it is arauea mat on an aiiegaiion or iiiegai m.inina taKing place on ia/o^/2un. respondent No.2 sgized the iractor. This action is an act of highhandedness because the area or mininfl was outside the forest area. The petluoner therefore intervened stating that the area rails outside the forest area, therefore, the ofr'icers of the forest department ought not to take action of seizure or the tractor without permission or the Coilector and the poiice department. Enraged by such ^iniervention or ine petltioner, respondent NO./ loaged a report maKing aliegations. it is further submitted that a iady Tara Bai has iodged report against the forest guard - Jagdish Prasad Kurre on 21/02/2011, who was 1)1 working under respondent No.7 aiieging that he was trying to outrage her modesty. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that one additionai reason iodging such FIR is the dispute benveen Tara Bai and Jagdish Prasad Kurre. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a member of Ziia Panchayat and he is being harassed bv the Doiice and forest officials as he intervened the iilegai action of seizure of tractor from an area outside the forest area. it is submitted that the compiaints have been lodaed against the forest omciais aiieginfi that they are induiaed in iiieaai mining. '< 3. Learnecs counsei ror tne petitioner suDmiis tnat me oacKgrouna in 'wnicn me inciaent aiiegea to navs oeen nappenes, constaenng tnat tne penaonefis a memoer or 2.iia "ancnavat ana aiso oscause tne area wnere me rorest oniciais seizea tne tractor !s outsiae tne rorest area ana tne atTidavit niea DV i ara Hai show that the forest officiais have initiated false criminal case against the ioner towards his harassment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 'sn that view of the matter, the FiR requires to be quashed. in support of hls submission. he has relied uoon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Court Csses 351 and Ruchi Majoo v. Sanleev iviaioo, 2011 i2l SCC (Cri'l ^l 5. i ne i-ih; nas Deen loagea w a resoonsi&ie offlcer OT me ranK OT uepuw Kanaer worKing in tne s-orest Kanae. ine conients or rne I-IK snow tnat a detaiied report has besn submined in the poiice station by Hanuman Singh. The alleaations in substance, as contained in the FiR, are that when the forest oTTicers came to Know tnat illeaal minina is aoina on in Torest compartmem No.2146 by some persons, the Torest officers including the compiainant reached \^:s':^ '/y%- '"^ yk.. ' ^ 1 VS^s, :: '"^^ .» '•^- £ •'a,_.<.-'^i* tnere ana action was inittatea ror aiiegea commission or oirence unaer me rorest range relating to illegai mining. The tractor which was being used was aiso seized. At that time, the petitioner and other accused persons arrived at the spot ana tney stanea aDusing me rorest officers, mey were tnreatenea ana aiso restralnea tne rorest officers trom perrorming tneir auty ana taKing away tne seized tractor and thereafter. the entire minerai extracted under illeaa! minina was unloaaed ana mereafter, tne seizea tractor was snatcnea ana removea trom me sD-ot. On tne basis of the aforesaid hlK Dased on a wrmen repon loaaea ov the forest officer. the poiice realstered crime under Crime No.62/11 aileging commission of otfence under Sectlon iBb', ws, 294, sue ana 3yz/34 I.HU. ir me 1-IR is taken on its Tace vaiue and taKing into consideration specmc ailegations, which have been made against the petitioner and other accused persons, it cannot be said that the FIR does not contain aiiegations which in the event of being proved, would not satisfy necessary ingredients of offence under which the crlme has oeen registered. e. Learnea counsei ror tne petitioner sought to venementiy argue tnat ff tne l-li-t is taKen as rt is.no alleganon or commission ot onence unaer secuon 3a^ iPC is made out. The submission cannot be acceDted on the face of the FIR. ~he manner in which the offence is alleaed to have been taken Diace. restrained the forest officials from performina their duty and snatching away the seized tractor, a case for investiaation Is definitelv made out. The FIR is not supposed to contain detaiis of the commission of offence. tt is the intimation of commission OT otfence. l ne suDmissions wnicn nave Deen maae Derore tnis uourt ana tne documents. which have been Diaced before th.is Court itseif are matter requiring investigation. i ne I-!K snows tnat tne according to tne rorest ornciais, rne area f€t':1 1 jf '••^ 1S ^3'*^C.«3"C; where iilegal mining was taking piace is inciuding forest compartment No.2476. The submission of iearned counsei for the petitioner that particular area is not inclucied in me forest area Dut outsiae tne rorest area and reliance ptaced on certain revenue recoras itseir is a maner or enquirv anct no nnai conciusion can be drawn at t'nis nascent stage of investiaation in the matter. The other issues raised by the petitioner which include allegations of Tara Bai against the rorest guard and various complaints made by the petitioner jn its capacifrs' as a member of Ziia Panchavat would aiso be a matter of investiaatlon. There is no substantive materiai on record to warrant interference bv this Court on the ailegations of maiice ieyeled against the Superintendent of Poiice or the District Forest Officer who have been sought to be impieaded in their personal capacity. The pieadings which have been made by the petitioner in the petition does not contain any specific aiiegation as to why respondents 4 and 5 would take personal affront aaainst the petitioner. Vvhether the alieaations made in the FIR are true ana correct, are ail matters of investigation. 7. The petitioner has placed reiian.ee on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. (Supra). Present is not a case where there is admission on the oart of the forest deDarfment on the asDect of minjng aoing outside tne forest area. This itself is disputeci. rne f-IK itseff snows that tne mining was going on in forest compartment No.2476. Therefore, it cannot be said that the documents whjch are now being piaced bv the petitioner in support or his story of defence are admitted documents. The reiiance piaced on the decision of the Supreme Court is therefore mispiaced. The other decision in the ^ case of Ruchi majoo (SuDra't is not apDiicabie in the present case as the FIR .rff .<? ^ prima facie reveals commission of offence aileged, wnich i have deait hereinabove. 8. in the result, i do not rind any merit in this petition and the petition is therefore iiabie to be dismissed summarilv and is accordinaiv dismissed. 9. berore parting with the case. it is clarified that whatever observations made by fnis Court are in order to nnd out whether a case of investlaation !s maae out or not. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge UeeptE ^)