{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.833 OF 2008 Arjun Sadashiv Dongre R/o Dunkawad Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed. PETITIONERS VERSUS 01- The State of Maharashtra 02- Circle Forest Officer, Dharur Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed. RESPONDENTS. *** Shri S.J.Salunke, advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, APP for the State. *** Coram : R.M.Borde, J. Date: 02nd July 2009. ORAL ORDER: 01- Rule. With consent of the parties, matter is taken for final hearing at admission stage. 02- The petitioner has presented the petition seeking quashment of criminal proceeding in pursuant to lodging of report bearing No.E/9/2008-09 dated 17/10/2008 at Police Station Dharur. {2} 03- It is alleged in the report given to the forest authorities that on the date of incident the accused was found in disputed land, which, according to the prosecution, is a forest land. The accused was trying to plough and conduct agricultural activities and was found in possession of agricultural equipments such as tractor and ploughing instruments etc. According to prosecution the accused / petitioner has committed offence under the provisions of Indian Forest Act. The prosecution has also charged commission of offence under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code and the offence is registered under the relevant Section of the Indian Penal Code also. 04- On perusal of FIR there are no allegations in respect of commission of offence of theft. The charge in that regard, therefore, is unsustainable. The counsel for the respondent / State has invited my attention to panchnama drawn by Fores Officials. In the panchnama also there are no particulars or material noted, to arrive at conclusion that the accused has committed theft of forest goods. In these circumstances, the charge under Sec.379 of the IPC is unsustainable. 05- Shri Dighe, for the State contends that the land in question is forest land belonging to the State Government and the accused was found {3} cultivating the forest land unauthorizedly. The accused is, in such circumstances, liable to be prosecuted in respect of violation of provisions of India Fores Act. However the charge under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable. In this view of the matter the complaint lodged by respondent no.2 in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sec. 379 of the IPC is quashed. The Forest or police Officials have liberty to investigate the matter in respect of violation of provisions of Indian Forest Act. 06- It is specifically made clear that the criminal proceedings in its entirety has not been quashed. However as no case is made out in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code, the criminal proceedings in respect of commission of offence under the relevant Section of the Indian Penal Code are only quashed. 07- Rule is accordingly made absolute. [R.M.BORDE] JUDGE /mda/0709/cwp833.08