C-482 No. 243 of 2010 With Stay App. No. 225 / 10 Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 01 of 2009- 2010; Forest Development Officer Vs. Kamrujama and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 26, 41, 42, 63 of the Forest Act, and Section 9 / 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is Village Pradhan and he has been implicated in the aforesaid case due to political rivalry with his opponents. It is further pleaded that there is no evidence on record on the basis of which the petitioner can be summoned in the aforesaid case. It is also argued that the remand sought by the forest department was refused by I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, vide his order dated 02.12.2009 (copy Annexure –5 to the petition). Whether the implication is due to political rivalry or not, is a question of fact. No doubt, the remand was refused as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner by the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, vide his order dated 02.12.2009, but the impugned charge sheet has been filed thereafter by the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer on 13.01.2010. From the perusal of the charge sheet / criminal complaint (copy Annexure –7 to the petition) it appears that the accused in connivance with the forest officials not only illegally encroached upon the forest land, but also illegally got fell the trees and caused loss to the wild life. Even the forest officials are made accused in the criminal complaint / charge sheet filed by the forest officers. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed (Stay Application No. 225 of 2010 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 23.03.2010 HN