1 2025:CGHC:52366-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3230 of 2025 1. Rajkumar S/o Kanhaiya Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Mandhar S/o Regnu Aged About 46 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. Amardas Rai S/o Gurudas Rai Aged About 44 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4. Mohan Kumar S/o Kanhaiya Aged About 34 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5. Alekh Kumar S/o Kathlu Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 6. Guruvaru S/o Punit Ram Aged About 87 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 7. Dhaneshwar Purena S/o Sanau Aged About 38 Years 223 Ward No. 08 R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 8. Hemlal Rai S/o Guruvaru Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 9. Satrudhan Sahu S/o Ramratan Aged About 51 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 10. Bodharam S/o Guruvaru Aged About 29 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 11. Vishnu Nishad S/o Ghurau Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 12. Sadram Nishad S/o Dhansai Aged About 64 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.28 18:11:56 +0530 2 13. Kanhaiya S/o Regunu Aged About 56 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 14. Mohit Ram Sahu S/o Dasi Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 15. Naresh S/o Sanau Aged About 42 Years R/o Bhajpuri, Saankra, Pithora District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary (Forest), Government of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Forest Officer Forest Range - Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “1. Quash the Crime No. 14327 of 2009, registered on 11.06.2021 by Forest Officer of Pithora Forest Circle 3 Mahasamund C.G. 2. Pass any other order in view of the special facts and circumstances mentioned in the present petition, in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they have been residing and cultivating land belonging to the Forest Department for the last twenty years at Village Bhajpuri, District Mahasamund. Initially, they were residing on Khasra No. 266. As per the Panchnama prepared by the Forest Department, the petitioners were removed from Khasra No. 266 and were orally shown another land bearing Khasra No. 265, where they were told to reside and carry on agricultural activities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Khasra No. 265 is not a reserved forest and, therefore, the basic ingredients of Section 26(1) of the Chhattisgarh Forest Act, 1972 (for short, ‘Act of 1972’) are not made out. It is further submitted that no forest produce has been seized from the petitioners, no trees have been cut, and no public property has been damaged. Hence, the invocation of Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short, ‘Act of 1984’) is wholly misconceived. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the investigation in the matter has been pending since 2021 and continues for over four years without any final report or charge-sheet being filed. It is argued that continuation of such prolonged investigation serves no fruitful purpose and amounts to harassment. It is also submitted that the 4 alleged place of incident, i.e., Khasra No. 265, is not a reserved forest, and for the same land, the petitioners’ Van Adhikar Patta application is pending consideration before the competent authority pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No. 3778 of 2025. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the pendency of the said Van Adhikar Patta proceedings itself establishes that the land in question is not a reserved forest, and that the petitioners, being claimants of Van Adhikar rights, cannot be prosecuted under Section 26(1) of the Act of 1972. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Abdul Jalil (AIR 1965 SC 147) and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Parsan v. State of U.P., Application U/S 528 of the BNSS Case No. 11239 of 2025, to support the contention that vague allegations without specific proof of damage or destruction cannot attract penal provisions. Hence, this petition. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the land in question originally belonged to the Forest Department, and the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation thereof. Upon their removal, they allegedly encroached upon adjoining land bearing Khasra No. 265. It is submitted that such conduct amounts to interference with Government property. However, learned State counsel fairly admits that the investigation has been pending since 2021 and no charge-sheet has been filed till date. 5 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition, including the panchnama and order-sheets of the learned trial Court. 9. From the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioners were removed from Khasra No. 266 by the Forest Department and were orally directed to reside and cultivate on Khasra No. 265. The said Khasra No. 265 has not been notified as a reserved forest under Section 20 of the Act of 1972. Therefore, the essential condition for applicability of Section 26(1) of the said Act — that the alleged act must occur within a reserved forest — is clearly not satisfied. 10. Further, there is no evidence on record of felling of trees, damage to forest property, seizure of forest produce, or destruction of public property. The mere allegation of residing or cultivating land does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 26(1) of the Forest Act or Section 3(1) of the Act of 1984. 11. The impugned allegations in the remand form are vague and general. No specific instance of destruction or loss has been detailed. Even the order-sheets of the learned trial Court reflect that investigation has been pending for over four years without progress. Prolonged investigation without submission of final report violates the principles of fair investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Abdul Jalil (supra), held that where statutory preconditions for application of penal provisions are 6 absent, continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process of law. Similarly, in Parsan (supra), the Allahabad High Court quashed proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act in the absence of specific proof of damage. 13. Applying these settled principles, this Court finds that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in the present case would serve no useful purpose and would amount to unnecessary harassment. The allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute offences under Section 26(1) of the Act of 1972 or Section 3(1) of the Act of 1984. 14. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the investigation and proceedings in the present matter is an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 15. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings and investigation arising out of Crime No. 14327 of 2009 registered at Forest Circle, Pithora, District Mahasamund, for alleged offences under Section 26(1) of the Act of 1972 and Section 3(1) of the Act of 1984, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan