Naveen Chandra Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been instituted by the Applicant, Shri Naveen Chandra Joshi, seeking a direction for the separation of trial and expeditious disposal of Criminal Case No. 1100 of 2010 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The proceedings originate from FIR No. 01 of 2009–2010, Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar, registered under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 26, 41, 42 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

2. The Applicant was, at the relevant time, posted as Forest Ranger, Khanpur Range, and has been arrayed as a co-accused along with eight others, including one Qamaruzzama, who is alleged to have indulged in illegal clearing of bushes, ploughing of reserved forest land, destruction of plantation, and illegal killing of wild animals. Criminal Misc. Application No. 145 of 2025, Naveen Chandra Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. It is the case of the State that the Applicant, in connivance with the said prime accused, facilitated the illegal activities by improperly shifting boundary pillars and altering the character of forest land.

4. The record reveals that the charge sheet in the said matter was filed on 13.01.2010, and cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31.05.2011. However, since the date of cognizance, no charges have been framed, and the matter has not progressed to the stage of trial. This stagnation is attributed in part to the pendency of two quashing petitions filed by co-accused persons, being C-482 Petition Nos. 377 of 2014 and 449 of 2014, wherein this Court passed interim stay orders.

5. Since 25.06.2014, there has been a complete halt in proceedings before the learned Magistrate. The Applicant submits that despite a

lapse of fifteen years since the institution of the FIR, the case has not advanced beyond the stage of cognizance.

6. Recently, on 24.02.2024, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, by relying upon the order of this Court in C-482 Application No. 2364 of 2023, directed separation of trial in respect of one co- accused, Yakub Ali, under the provisions of Section 317 CrPC (corresponding to Section 355 BNSS), and ordered that the proceedings be expedited. The Applicant now seeks similar relief on the ground of parity.

7. The Applicant further submits that owing to the pendency of the present criminal case, departmental proceedings initiated against him in 2009 have also remained inconclusive.

8. The Applicant retired on 31.10.2018, and has since been receiving only provisional pension. He has been denied regular pension, gratuity, promotional benefits, and other service entitlements, thereby suffering significant prejudice on both personal and financial fronts. Criminal Misc. Application No. 145 of 2025, Naveen Chandra Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has argued that the inordinate delay of fifteen years in progressing the trial violates the fundamental right of the Applicant to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Applicant cannot be made to suffer the consequences of delay arising from proceedings initiated by other co-accused, in which the Applicant is not even a party.

10. It is contended that the case against the Applicant is primarily administrative in nature, relating to actions taken in his official capacity as a Forest Ranger. There is no allegation of direct or personal benefit having been accrued by him, nor is there any material that demonstrates culpability independent of the main accused. The only allegation is that he permitted or facilitated a survey upon receiving a written representation from one of the co-accused, and that he failed to prevent certain unauthorised activities, despite having issued a notice to the principal offender.

11. It is also submitted that the departmental inquiry against the Applicant, initiated after his suspension in 2009, has remained pending for over 15 years solely due to the non-conclusion of the criminal proceedings. As a result, the Applicant, despite his retirement in 2018, has been denied the full and final settlement of his retirement dues, including gratuity and other benefits. The prolonged litigation has caused not only professional harm but has also affected the Applicant’s personal dignity and financial stability.

12. Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the application, placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Forest Department.

13. It is submitted that the delay in trial is not solely attributable to the prosecution or the co-accused but is in part a consequence of Criminal Misc. Application No. 145 of 2025, Naveen Chandra Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 3 Ashish Naithani J. interim orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in connected matters, in which the Applicant has chosen not to intervene.

14. It is contended that if the Applicant believed that such stay orders were not applicable to him, he ought to have sought clarification or modification in the concerned C-482 petitions.

15. The learned State Counsel further submits that the allegations against the Applicant are not merely administrative lapses but indicate active connivance with the co-accused in the manipulation of reserved forest boundaries, unauthorised clearance and felling of trees, and destruction of plantation and wildlife habitats.

16. The survey conducted on 05.02.2009, which forms the basis of defence for the Applicant, is stated to be without jurisdiction and a product of collusion between the Applicant and the principal offenders.

17. It is vehemently contended that the State’s case rests on a chain of connected evidence involving multiple accused persons, and the nature of the offences alleged is such that separation of trial would cause serious inconvenience to the prosecution and its witnesses.

18. According to the learned Counsel, permitting piecemeal trials may result in conflicting findings, procedural complications, and undue hardship for the Department in coordinating testimony and documents spread over several accused.

19. It is argued that the allegations pertain to forest and wildlife violations of a serious nature, and therefore, any relief based on delay alone must be granted with caution.

20. The learned Counsel concludes by stating that the prayer made in the present application is premature, misplaced, and contrary to the interest of a fair and comprehensive trial. The application, it is submitted, deserves to be dismissed.

21. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the records. Criminal Misc. Application No. 145 of 2025, Naveen Chandra Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 4 Ashish Naithani J.

22. This Court is of the view that the limited issue involved in the present application is whether the continued pendency of trial in Criminal Case No. 1100 of 2010, for over fifteen years without any material progress, justifies a direction for separation and expeditious disposal of the case qua the present Applicant.

23. It is not in dispute that the charge sheet in the case was submitted in January 2010 and cognizance was taken on 31.05.2011. However, no charges have been framed to date, and the proceedings have remained in abeyance since at least 2014, owing to the pendency of quashing petitions filed by other co-accused, in which interim stay orders were passed. The Applicant is not a party in those petitions and has not been heard in connection with the stay.

24. In the meantime, no active steps have been taken by the prosecution to segregate or advance the trial qua those accused against whom no legal impediment exists.

25. The grievance of the Applicant is compounded by the fact that the trial of one co-accused, Yakub Ali, has already been separated and is now being conducted independently pursuant to directions issued by this Court. In such circumstances, there is no tenable reason why the Applicant, who stands on comparable factual and procedural footing, should be denied similar relief.

26. This Court is mindful of the concerns raised by the State regarding the integrity of evidence and potential inconvenience in coordinating prosecution. However, the same arguments were evidently not found insurmountable in the case of Yakub Ali.

27. Further, it must be noted that the right to a speedy trial is not a notional formality but a substantive safeguard under Article 21 of the Constitution. The delay in the present case is not of a few months or years, but a stagnation exceeding fifteen years, during which the trial has not even crossed the preliminary stage. Criminal Misc. Application No. 145 of 2025, Naveen Chandra Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 5 Ashish Naithani J.

28. The departmental consequences suffered by the Applicant, including denial of full pensionary benefits, further underscore the prejudice caused by prolonged pendency.

29. While the seriousness of environmental offences cannot be discounted, the principle of parity and the Applicant’s constitutional right to a timely trial must receive due weight.

30. This Court is satisfied that separation of trial at this stage would not irreparably harm the prosecution and would instead serve the broader ends of justice. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, and having regard to the inordinate delay of more than fifteen years in conclusion of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 01 of 2009–2010, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar, culminating in Criminal Case No. 1100 of 2010, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served by allowing the present application. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is allowed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Haridwar, is directed to separate the trial of the present Applicant in Criminal Case No. 1100 of 2010 and to proceed independently and expeditiously in accordance with law. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:21.07.2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No. 145 of 2025, Naveen Chandra Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 6 Ashish Naithani J.