Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108546 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2700 of 2025 Revisionist :- Shiv Jyoti Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pratik Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Asha Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Criminal Case No. 3699 of 2020 (State Vs. Shiv Jyoti Singh) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for his discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 278, 285 and 336 I.P.C., had been rejected. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that initially F.I.R. No. 0308 of 2019 was registered in Police Station, Madhotonda, District Pilibhit under Sections 278, 285, 336, 427, 435 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 8 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986"). The Investigating Officer, after completing investigation, had filed charge-sheet against the revisionist only under Sections 278, 285, 336 I.P.C. and Section 8 of the Act of 1986. 4. The competent court took cognizance over the aforesaid chargesheet filed by the Investigating Officer. The cognizance taken by the court against the revisionist under Section 8 of the Act of 1986 was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2023 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Pilibhit vide order dated 20.10.2023 had set-aside the cognizance taken against the revisionist under Section 8 of the Act of 1986. Later on, the revisionist filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23056 of 2024 wherein, the revisionist was granted liberty to file an application for discharge before the trial court. The revisionist, pursuant to the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23056 of 2024, filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for his discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 278, 285 and 336 I.P.C. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit had passed the order dated 19.02.2025 in Criminal Case No. 3699 of 2020 whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 239 Cr.P.C., had been rejected. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the entire criminal case against the revisionist was started by the State on the allegation that burning of 'Parali' in the agricultural field of the revisionist constitutes an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Act of 1986 but later on the revisional court had set-aside the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate against the revisionist under Section 8 of the Act of 1986. It has further been argued that once the main plank i.e. cognizance taken for the offence under Section 8 of the Act of 1986 had been set-aside, the charge for offences punishable under Sections 278, 285 and 336 I.P.C. cannot be constituted. 7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist has further argued that there is no material collected by the Investigating Officer in the case, on the basis of which, the charge against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 278, 285 and 336 I.P.C. can be sustained. It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that Section 278 I.P.C. comes into play when any person by his act makes the atmosphere noxious to the health but there is no evidence on record that the revisionist was responsible for making atmosphere noxious to the health. Section 285 I.P.C. comes into play when there is any negligence committed by a person with respect to fire or combustible matter but in the present case, there is no material on record to show that there was any negligence committed by the revisionist in respect of the fire or combustible matter. Section 336 I.P.C. comes into play only when any person does any act so rashly or negligently, so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others but in the present case, there is no material to show that due to any act of the revisionist, human life was in danger or personal safety of any person was at stake. 8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist has thus argued that in the present case, cognizance taken under Section 8 of the Act of 1986 had already been set-aside and there is no material available on record, on the basis of which, charge for offences punishable under Sections 278, 285 and 336 I.P.C. can be constituted. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed this revision but could not point out any material available on record, on the basis of which, the charge against the revisionist for offences punishable under Sections 278, 285 and 336 I.P.C. can be sustained. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I find that the entire allegation against the revisionist is that he by burning 'Parali' in his agricultural field has committed an offence and has violated the order issued by the learned National Green Tribunal. Besides the aforesaid allegation, there is no material available before the court to constitute the charge against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 278, 285 and 336 I.P.C. It is noteworthy that the main charge against the revisionist was in respect of violation of the provisions made under Section 8 of the Act of 1986 and the offence committed thereunder but cognizance taken by the leaned Magistrate under Section 8 of the Act of 1986 had already been set-aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Pilibhit. 11. So far as the alleged offences committed by the revisionist under Sections 278, 285 and 336 I.P.C. are concerned, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State could not point out any material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which charges for the offences under the aforesaid sections can be sustained against the revisionist. 12. The Section 278 I.P.C. comes into play when any person by his act makes the atmosphere noxious to the health but there is no evidence on record that the revisionist was responsible for making atmosphere noxious to the health. The Section 285 I.P.C. comes into play when there is any negligence committed by a person with respect to fire or combustible matter but in the present case, there is no material on record to show that there was any negligence committed by the revisionist in respect of the fire or combustible matter. The Section 336 I.P.C. comes into play only when any person does any act so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others but in the present case, there is no material to show that due to any act of the revisionist, human life was in danger or personal safety of any person was at stake 13. This Court finds that once main charge for violation of Section 8 of the Act of 1986 and the offence committed thereunder had been dropped, there is no material available on record on the basis of which, the charge against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 278, 285 and 336 I.P.C. can be sustained. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.02.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Criminal Case No. 3699 of 2020 (State Vs. Shiv Jyoti Singh), is set-aside. 15. The proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 3699 of 2020 (State Vs. Shiv Jyoti Singh), pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in respect of a case registered in Police Station, Madhotonda, District, Pilibhit under Sections 278, 285, 336, 427, 435 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 8 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad