[ 2026:JHHC:3060] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2042 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2042 of 2025 1. Shivam Srivastava @ Shivam Srivastaw, aged about 56 years, S/o-Laxminarain Srivastava, R/o- Flat No. 906 Building- B-3, Handewali Road, Handapsar Sasane Nagar, Ruwal Seagull, Pune City, P.O- & P.S.- Ruwal Seagull, Dist-Pune, Maharashtra- 411028. 2. Birendra Kumar @Birendar kumar, aged about 52 years, S/o- Late Sri Raghu Ram, R/o - Gram Kujeshar, Jaleya, P.O. & P.S Raniganj, Dist- Gaya, Bihar. ... Petitioners. ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Forest Guard, Barkagaon Forest Range, Hazaribagh, S/o not known to the petitioners, currently posted as Barkagaon Forest Range, Hazaribagh, P.O and P.S- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh .….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. Learned Spl. P.P. files the Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Opp. Party no. 2. Keep the same in the record. Copy of the same has been served upon the petitioners. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned JMFC, Hazaribagh in connection with C. Case (F) No. 3192 of 2022 whereby and whereunder, JMFC, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 19.11.2022 at about 4.00 P.M. the petitioner has along with their associates, caused damage to the trees and bushes, by cutting the same and were constructing PCC road inside the forest area and on seeing the [ 2026:JHHC:3060] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2042 of 2025 complainant- Forest Guard, the petitioners fled away, leaving their implements used for cutting trees and bushes and constructing the PCC road, which were seized by the complainant. The offence report was verified by the Forest Range Officer and the allegation were found to be true and the prosecution report was filed, on the basis of which, learned Magistrate found the prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are from NTPC, Hazaribagh and they do not have any personal interest in the construction of the road. It is next submitted that the road was got constructed under the CSR policy at the request of the villages and no offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act is made out, even if the allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false hence, the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Spl. PP, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of destroying the forest by cutting down the trees, saplings and bushes and causing damages to the trees by constructing the PCC road within the protected forest area. It is next submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners were seen by the Forest Guard, while indulging in the said offence and the contention of the petitioners that they were doing so as the CSR activity of the NTPC, will not absolve them from the penalty provided for in Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and their contention that the allegations against the petitioners, are false, is at best the defence, which they can take during the trial but certainly, this court in exercise of the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 cannot consider the defence of the petitioners. It is next submitted that the petitioners indulged in the said offence, [ 2026:JHHC:3060] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2042 of 2025 deliberately and in conspiracy with the co-accused persons by violating Section 33 as well as Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment 1989), as well as the BPLE Act, 1956 and at the time of framing of charge, learned Magistrate, is likely to frame charges for those offences as well. It is next submitted that because of the offences committed by the petitioners, damage worth Rs. 2,10,000/- has been caused to the protected forest area. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners trespassed upon the protected forest area, cutting trees and bushes and damaged the trees by constructing the PCC road, within the protected forest area. The complainant forest Guard has seen the petitioners indulging in the alleged offence and the petitioners have stated that they indulged in the said act but their contention is that the said act was done as the part of the CSR activity of the petitioners, by engaging an agent. In the considered opinion of this court the same will not absolve them of the alleged offence committed and the contention of the petitioners that the allegations against them are false, is a defence, which they can take during the trial of the case. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioners and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 of BNSS which corresponds to Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as that would be the job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 7. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 7. It is also a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, cannot conduct a mini trial, as has been reiterated by [ 2026:JHHC:3060] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2042 of 2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under : “ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the complainant- Forest Guard saw the petitioners indulging in causing damage to the trees by constructing PCC road inside the protected forest area, besides clearing forest area by cutting bushes and shrubs and the petitioners fled away on seeing the Forest Guard and implements used by the petitioners in cutting the bushes and shrubs as well as construction of the PCC road, has been seized by the forest officials. 9. In view of the said direct allegation against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of its power under section 528 of BNSS. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 5th February, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 20.02.2026