IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 754 of 2009() ----------------------------------- C.C.329/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THAMARASSERY. ..................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------- JOSEPH DEVASSIA KURUVATHAZHA, S/O.LATE DEVASSIA, AGED 78 YEARS, KURUVATHAZHA HOUSE, KOODARANHI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, MR.K.I.SAGEER. RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN - 31. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF FOREST & WILD LIFE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (FOREST) MR.M.P. PRAKASH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON 10/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 754 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have all further proceedings in C.C.329 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thamarassery quashed. 2. The allegation is that on 17.10.2006 while the forest officials were on duty, they found that there was tampering with the forest property. They found several trees cut down. They registered a crime for the said purpose. Later on a notice was issued to the petitioner informing him that he is accused in O.R.35 of 2006 and he may offer his explanation if any. A reply was given by the petitioner. The notice and the reply are marked as Annexure G. However, the prosecution was launched against the petitioner. Crl.M.C.754/2009. 2 3. The petitioner would say that the registration of crime against him is unjust and illegal. He had not committed any act which would constitute an offence. He points out that he purchased 2.48 acres of land from Mr. Mathew Kunnath, who was cultivating the same from 1960 onwards. Annexure A is the title deed. The property remains within well defined boundaries. It is pointed out by the petitioner that even though Mathew Kunnath was in possession of the property and was carrying on agricultural operations in the property, quite often the forest officials used to interfere with his possession stating that his possession was illegal. That led to the filing of O.P.5008 of 1997 before this court. The said Original Petition was disposed of directing Mathew Kunnath to approach the Forest Tribunal in appropriate proceedings. He filed O.A.80 of 1998 and that O.A. was allowed, copy of which is produced as Annexure C. The State took up the matter in appeal as M.F.A.367 of 2000, but that was dismissed by Annexure D order. The Forest officials now again are Crl.M.C.754/2009. 3 claiming that the property to be a forest land and the petitioner has committed an illegality by cutting trees from there. Petitioner would say that there is absolutely no bona fides in the claim made by the respondents and that the proceedings are simply to harass him. 4. Initially the petitioner did not produce the various documents relied on by him and by Crl.M.A.291 of 2010, while seeking revival and extension of the interim order, he produced various documents showing his right and ownership over the property. 5. The forest officers claimed that four types of trees had been cut down. But from the records produced by the petitioner, it could easily be seen that the trees said to have been cut and removed were from his own property, which is covered by Annexure A title deed. As already noticed, the petitioner had bought the property from Mathew Kunnath, who had established his right over the same through legal proceedings. There is no case for the respondents that the cutting of the trees by the petitioner Crl.M.C.754/2009. 4 from his own property is contrary to the provisions of any law. In fact, in the objection to the notice issued to him, he had pointed out all these facts. But for reasons best known to the respondents, they chose to ignore it. Property is under the cultivation of the petitioner and one fails to understand how it could form part of a forest. In legal proceedings it had been confirmed that the property owned by Mathew Kunnath, which subsequently came into the possession of the petitioner, is not portion of the forest area. The prosecution is clearly ill-conceived and it is ill- advised. In the result, this petition is allowed, all further proceedings in C.C. 329 of 2008 pending before JFCM-II, Thamarassery shall stand quashed and the proceedings against the petitioner shall stand dropped. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.