Dhanbad (Jharkhand) v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4273 of 2018 ------ 1. Ramjee Kumar Singh @ Ramji Kumar Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Sri Bishundeo Singh, residing at G.M. Bungalow, PO- Sonarioh, PS- Madhuban, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 2. Prabir Ghosh @ P. Ghosh, aged about 61 years, son of Late Hari Pada Ghosh, resident C/O Gouri Ghosh, Flat No. C202, VIP Road, Kopla Vihar, PO & PS- Vasundhra, Kolkata Airport, Kolkata, West Bengal 3. Bishwa Mohan Kumar @ B.M. Kumar, aged about 59 years, son of late Rajendra Lal Das, residing at D-3, Section-VIII, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Koyla Nagar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party … Petitioners ------ For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with B.F. Case No.12 of 2015 including the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 33 1 Cr. M.P. No.4273 of 2018 and 33 (c) of the Indian Forest Act, and the said case is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 28.06.2015, the Forest Officials during patrolling the forest area found that under the direction of B.C.C.L Govindpur Area No.III, the labourers engaged by Samanta & Company were encroaching upon the forest land by preparing the frame of iron shed. On an earlier occasion on 23.04.2015, the petitioner No.2 was called to the Regional Office of the Forest Department at Topchanchi for interrogation, wherein the petitioner No.2 in writing admitted that the labourers erroneously did the work in forest area and gave in writing on behalf of the General Manager, Govindpur Area No. III, BCCL and assured that till the joint inspection of the area and measurement is not done, no construction would be made upon the forest land. On the basis of the prosecution report, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cognizance order dated 18.12.2015 has been passed without application of mind. It is then submitted that none of the labourers allegedly indulging in preparing the frame of the iron shed has been made accused. It is further submitted that there is neither any allegation against any of the petitioners that any of the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence on 28.06.2015 nor is there any allegation that the petitioners engaged Samanta & Company for doing any work or encroaching the forest land. It is next submitted that the BCCL has not been made an accused and no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be made accused only because they are the officers of the BCCL. It is next submitted that there is dispute with respect to the 2 Cr. M.P. No.4273 of 2018 boundary of the alleged place of occurrence Parti land and in the absence of any demarcation, it cannot be said that any non-forest activity took place inside the forest land. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for, in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that since under the instigation and direction of the petitioners, encroachment was done, hence, the petitioners are squarely responsible for the encroachment on the forest land. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the officers of a company cannot be held criminally liable for the offence committed by the company unless they have any specific role played in commission of such offence. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have instigated and directed for encroaching the forest land to Samanta & Company and their labourers. None from Samanta & Company and their labourers has been arrayed as an accused. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the labourers who encroached upon the forest land, fled away with all their tools, tackles and machines. There is no material in the record to suggest as to on what basis, it is alleged that the petitioners directed and instigated someone else, who has not been arrayed as accused, for encroaching upon the forest land. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners of doing any acts, deeds or things themselves except instigating and directing some unknown persons whose names and descriptions have not been mentioned in the prosecution report. 3 Cr. M.P. No.4273 of 2018 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in connection with B.F. Case No.12 of 2015 including the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with B.F. Case No.12 of 2015 including the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, as prayed for by the petitioners, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above. 9. 10.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 20.11.2019, is vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of September, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 4 Cr. M.P. No.4273 of 2018