(2025:JHHC:15013) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1170 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1170 of 2025 ------ Vivekanand Rai @ Vivekanand Ray, Son of Manohar Prasad Rai, aged about- 47 years, resident of village- Bargunia, P.O.- Kasathi, P.S.- Devipur, Madhupur, District- Deoghar … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the portion of the order dated 23.01.2021 passed in Complaint Case No.1164 of 2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 33 (1) (C) and 63 (C) of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) after observing that prima facie case for the said offences is made out inter alia against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of a vehicle with machinery for digging borewells. It is alleged that being engaged by the co-accused Mohan Saw who has been cited as accused No.1 in the prosecution report, the said borewell vehicle of the petitioner was used by the petitioner for digging a borewell inside the protected forest area. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that in the prosecution report itself the complainant- Forest Range Officer, Saraiya Forest Premises has categorically (2025:JHHC:15013) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1170 of 2025 mentioned that the involvement of the petitioner could not be established for committing the offence; as the petitioner is only the owner of the borewell vehicle concerned and the complainant- Forest Range Officer has requested the court, to take strict legal action against the co-accused Mohan Saw only but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has mentioned in the order dated 23.01.2021 that the prosecution report has been submitted against the co-accused Mohan Saw and the petitioner as well and on that premise; went on to hold that prima facie case for the said offences is made out against the petitioner as well and taken cognizance of the said offences. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the identification pillar of the forest was covered by the co-accused Mohan Saw; so there is no way the petitioner could have known that the place of occurrence in which the boring was being done, was a forest land and in the absence of the same no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner and rightly the complainant himself has also stated the same but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, without application of judicial mind, has failed to consider the same and has directed for issuance of summons against the petitioner as well. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioner, be allowed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle engaged for digging the borewell, is squarely responsible for the criminal liability of the accused. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention (2025:JHHC:15013) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1170 of 2025 here that the complainant- Forest Range Officer, himself in the prosecution report, has categorically requested the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to take strict legal action only against the co-accused Mohan Saw. He has categorically mentioned in the prosecution report itself that the involvement of the petitioner in the offence cannot be established. The undisputed fact remains that the co- accused Mohan Saw covered the identification pillar of the Forest Department put at the place of occurrence. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has committed a grave illegality in observing that the prosecution report has been submitted against the petitioner as well, though in the prosecution report itself it has categorically been mentioned that the same was submitted against the co-accused Mohan Saw, though in the first page of the prosecution report, in the place, in which the name of the accused is to be mentioned, the name of the petitioner has also been mentioned and went on to take cognizance on that basis. 9. 9. In view of the discussions made above, since in the prosecution report itself it has categorically been mentioned that there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner has any knowledge that the place of occurrence where the boring was done, belongs to the Forest Department, hence, in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of having committed the alleged offence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 23.01.2021 passed in Complaint Case No.1164 of 2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. (2025:JHHC:15013) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1170 of 2025 10. Accordingly, the order dated 23.01.2021 passed in Complaint Case No.1164 of 2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of June, 2025 AFR/ Animesh