✦ High Court of India · 21 Mar 2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division

Case Details High Court of India · 21 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Case No.
Misc Application No. 722 of 2024
Decided
21 Mar 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,141 words

submissions made by counsel for the parties. 4

7. In the recovery memo Annexure-1, the details of the vehicles confiscated, for use in the commission of forest crime have been shown, in which, one the Motorcycl.e bearing registration number U.A. 04 E 2497. It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner of the truck having registration no. U.A. 04 A 2497. It has been the case of petitioner throughout that the truck that is registered in the name of the present petitioner has not been seized by the forest authorities in respect of the commission of forest crime at any point of time. The number of the motorcycle as mentioned herein is registered in the record in the name of one Khushal Singh, while the truck is registered in the name of the petitioner. It is admitted that the difference between the registration numbers of the vehicle pertains only to the letters ‘A’ and ‘E’ and the remaining numbers of the registration numbers of both the vehicles are the same. As per the petitioner, the petitioner brought this fact before the competent trial court, however, without paying any heed to the claim of the petitioner, bailable and non- bailable warrants were issued against petitioner. Moreover, no genuine or trustworthy evidence is brought that shows that the petitioner 5 is involved in the commission of the crime, thus, there appears to be gross illegality and perversity on the part of the forest officials in summoning the petitioner for the crime.

8. In the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case, where the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. can be exercised.

9. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 4650 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Mamta (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)

21.03.2025 6

submissions made by counsel for the parties. 4

7. In the recovery memo Annexure-1, the details of the vehicles confiscated, for use in the commission of forest crime have been shown, in which, one the Motorcycl.e bearing registration number U.A. 04 E 2497. It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner of the truck having registration no. U.A. 04 A 2497. It has been the case of petitioner throughout that the truck that is registered in the name of the present petitioner has not been seized by the forest authorities in respect of the commission of forest crime at any point of time. The number of the motorcycle as mentioned herein is registered in the record in the name of one Khushal Singh, while the truck is registered in the name of the petitioner. It is admitted that the difference between the registration numbers of the vehicle pertains only to the letters ‘A’ and ‘E’ and the remaining numbers of the registration numbers of both the vehicles are the same. As per the petitioner, the petitioner brought this fact before the competent trial court, however, without paying any heed to the claim of the petitioner, bailable and non- bailable warrants were issued against petitioner. Moreover, no genuine or trustworthy evidence is brought that shows that the petitioner 5 is involved in the commission of the crime, thus, there appears to be gross illegality and perversity on the part of the forest officials in summoning the petitioner for the crime.

8. In the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case, where the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. can be exercised.

9. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 4650 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Mamta (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)

21.03.2025 6

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments