2025:JHHC:19517 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(Cr.) No. 432 of 2025 Janardan Rai, son of late Jayanti Rai, resident of village Berhabad, P.O Berhabad, P.S. Jamua, District- Giridih, Jharkhand ...... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Deptt. Of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Govt. of Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi. 3. The Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of the Forest Force, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Giridih. 7. The Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih Western Forest Division, Mohanpur, Pachamba, Giridih. 8. The Forest Range Officer, Jamua Range, Jamua, Giridih. 9. The Circle Officer, Jamua, Giridih. … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Advocate (through V.C) For the State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III …..... 05/17.07.2025: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- For direction upon the respondent authorities to take action against respondent No. 7 for falsely implicating the petitioner and his family members in false Forest Cases and grant a compensation of Rs. 30 lakh to the petitioner for the sufferings and order to constitute a high level inquiry on encroachment of forest land. Admittedly, the petitioner was an accused in two cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who appears virtually, submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in these cases. He prays that since the petitioner has been acquitted, action may be taken against the person, who has lodged false cases against the petitioner. In my opinion, this criminal writ can not lie. Compensation can be granted after considering several aspects for which, the petitioner needs to establish many facts by leading evidence. Further there was any element of malice, the same needs to be proved by evidence. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate remedy. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)