Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 3699 of 2018 1. Adi Das, aged about 38 years, Son of Late Dhananjay Das. 2. Kajal Dutta, aged about 78 years, Son of Late Ramesh Dutta. 3. Raghu Mahto @ Raghu Mahato, aged about 53 years, Son of Late Chhotu Mahto. All are residents of Village- Kharangajhar Market, P.O.- Luabasa, P.S.- Govindpur, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. ….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Binay Kumar, father’s name not known to the petitioner, Forest Guard, Bhilai Pahari Range, P.O. & P.S. – Mango, District- East Singhbhum. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 06/Dated: 15th January, 2025 1. The instant application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 03.10.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 2318 of 2016, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken under Sections 33, 63 and 66 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. 2. Learned counsels for the petitioner has been submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case only with a view to harass and compel that to forego their possession over the disputed land. Page | 2 3. It is further submitted that earlier a proceeding under Bihar Public Land Encroachment (BPLE) Case No. 136 of 2016 under Anti Encroachment drive was also initiated against the petitioners vide order dated 13.10.2016, the petitioners were directed to vacate the land with construction within three weeks, otherwise, the same shall be removed and cost of removal will be realized. Thereafter, in spite of filing an appeal before the concerned District Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur preferred civil Writ Petition No. 6455 of 2016 before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, wherein vide order dated 15.02.2018, the respondent no. 2, Deputy Commissioner East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur was directed to register the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 13.10.2016 passed by respondent no. 3, Divisional Forest Officer, Jamshedpur Forest Division, Jamshedpur and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order. 4. Further, it was order for taking no coercive action against the petitioners for their dispossession from the land in question. In the meanwhile, the proceeding of present case was initiated through information report submitted by one Vinay Kumar Forest Guard, who has clearly stated that on 05.08.2016, he visited the forest area and found that the petitioners are running shop since 10 to 12 years by constructing Pucca (पÈका) room. Besides this, the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending for adjudication before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur. Therefore, the initiation of present proceeding and submission of prosecution repot as well as passing of summoning order by the concerned trial court, all are misuse of the process of the Court, not only this, admittedly offence, if any, is alleged have been committed Page | 3 before ten years, which is absolutely time barred. No civil proceeding has been executed by the Forest Department against the petitioners up till now. 5. In the above premises is represent that entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2318 of 2016 bending before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur including the summoning order of issuance of summons against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. This petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned APP has defended the impugned order and initiation of proceeding against the petitioners, but no reasonable explanation has been occurred for initiation of proceeding for conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 33 of the Forest Act after ten years of uninterrupted possession of the petitioners and also ignoring pendency of other proceedings. 7. In view of aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is nothing else, but abuse of process of the Court. Hence, entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 03.10.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 2318 of 2016 is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7198 of 2022 is disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran/