Babu Lal Another v. State of Uttarakhand another

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the Applicants Mr. Vipin Painuli, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarkhand. Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the private respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) 1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Babu Lal and Birendra Singh Bisht, who serve as Deputy Forest Ranger and Forest Range Officer respectively in the Khatima Range, Tarai East Forest Division, District Nainital.

2. The applicants seek quashing of the cognisance /summoning order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tanakpur, District Champawat in Misc. Criminal Case No. 323 of 2018 titled "Champa Devi Vs. Babu Lal & another," wherein the applicants have been summoned for offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as summoning order dated 11.03.2019 passed by 1 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Tanakpur, District Champawat in Criminal Case No.677 of 2017, “Ramveer Vs. Babu Lal & another” under sections 427, 323 and 506 of IPC.

3. The factual matrix reveals that on 11.12.2017, during routine patrolling in the Reserve Forest Area of East Banbasa Beat No. 5, the forest officials, including the applicants, attempted to apprehend certain individuals, among them Ramveer, husband of Respondent No. 2, Champa Devi, for illegal felling of trees.

4. Although the individuals managed to escape, the officials recovered felled timber and lodged H-2 Report No. 08/47 against the named persons. A second incident occurred on 17.12.2017, when forest officials again encountered Ramveer allegedly erecting electric wires in the forest area to trap wildlife animals.

5. Another H-2 report was lodged for offences under Section 26(1)(f)(h) of the Forest Act and Sections 2, 9, and 51 of the TheWild Life (Protection) Act, , 1972. These reports led to criminal proceedings against Ramveer before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

6. On 12.12.2017, Ramveer filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the forest officials before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanakpur, seeking protection against eviction from the land in question. Subsequently, on 18.12.2017, Ramveer also filed a criminal complaint against the applicants alleging offences under Sections 425, 323, and 506 IPC.

7. Furthermore, his wife, Respondent No. 2 Champa Devi, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 20.01.2018 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, which was treated as a complaint case. After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate took cognisance and issued the impugned summoning order dated 29.09.2018. 2

8. A connected matter involving similar circumstances concerns one Kamaluddin, who also serves as a Forester in the same forest division and is facing criminal proceedings initiated by the same complainant family. Kamaluddin has filed a separate application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking similar relief.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the criminal proceedings have been instituted as a retaliatory response to the lawful enforcement actions undertaken by them under the provisions of the Forest Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act,

10. It was argued that Ramveer and his wife Champa Devi have filed these complaints as a pressure tactic to frustrate the proceedings under the Forest laws and to shield their illegal activities, including encroachment on forest land and endangerment of wildlife through electrified fencing.

11. The learned Counsel emphasized that the applicants were acting within the scope of their official duties while confronting these violations, and therefore, are protected under Section 74 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended by the Uttarakhand Amendment Act, 2001) which provides immunity to public servants for acts done in good faith.

12. It was further submitted on behalf of the Applicants that the Judicial Magistrate at Tanakpur lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the alleged incidents took place in an area falling outside Tanakpur limits, which is evident from the Revenue Sub-Inspector's report dated 07.01.2018.

13. It was also argued that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 427, 504, and 506 IPC are not made out from the allegations in the complaint, and the cognizance was taken mechanically without proper appreciation of evidence.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 argued that her complaint is genuine and not retaliatory. She contended that her husband has been in possession of the land in question for over a 3 decade and that the forest officials, including the applicants, have been continuously harassing her family.

15. According to her, the H-2 reports were manufactured to lend legal colour to arbitrary and illegal eviction attempts. She pointed out that the civil court had granted an injunction in her husband's favour on 27.01.2018, recognising their claim of possession.

16. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the protection under Section 74 of the Forest Act cannot be claimed where actions are not demonstrably connected with the discharge of official duties or are patently mala fide.

17. It was argued that physical violence, threats, and intimidation fall outside the scope of official duty and cannot be cloaked in official immunity.

18. On the jurisdictional objection, it is contended that the complaint was based on incidents that occurred in Village Devipur, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Tanakpur, and moreover, the Magistrate had already satisfied himself about jurisdiction before taking cognisance.

19. This court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials on record.

20. The primary question before this Court is whether the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted to quash the criminal proceedings against the applicants at this stage.

21. The sequence of events in this case is revealing. The forest officials filed H-2 reports against Ramveer on 11.12.2017 and

17.12.2017. Immediately thereafter, Ramveer filed a civil suit on

12.12.2017 and later a criminal complaint, followed by his wife's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 20.01.2018.

22. While this chronology does suggest that the complaints against the forest officials might have been motivated by the enforcement actions taken against Ramveer, such an inference alone cannot be 4 the basis for quashing the proceedings. The truth of allegations can only be determined after a trial and evidence.

23. The applicants assert protection under Section 74 of the Indian Forest Act, which shields public servants for acts done in good faith in pursuance of the Act or any rules/orders made thereunder. Additionally, they invoke Section 197 Cr.P.C., which requires prior sanction before prosecuting public servants for actions undertaken in discharge of official duty.

24. This Court is cognizant of the legal standard laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various rulings, including Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2016) 12 SCC 87 and State of Orissa vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew (2004) 8 SCC 40, wherein it has been held that not every act done by a public servant warrants such protection—only those that are reasonably connected to official duty qualify.

25. In the present case, the allegations in the complaint include physical assault, criminal intimidation, and verbal abuse. These are personal and penal in nature.

26. Whether these acts were committed as part of “discharging official duty” or were in excess of authority and therefore personal is a fact-intensive inquiry that cannot be concluded at this preliminary stage.

27. Accordingly, the question of sanction is premature at this stage and is best left to be determined upon appreciation of evidence during trial.

28. The applicants have placed reliance on a Revenue report dated

07.01.2018, suggesting that the place of occurrence lies outside the territorial jurisdiction of Tanakpur and falls within Khatima. However, the respondent argues that the incident occurred at her residence in Village Devipur, which falls within the territorial bounds of Tanakpur. 5

29. As regards the existence of a prima facie case, the complainant and three supporting witnesses have recorded statements alleging specific acts of intimidation, verbal abuse, and threats attributed to the applicants. Upon consideration of these depositions, the Magistrate found sufficient material to summon the accused.

30. This Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial at this stage.

31. The parallel case of Kamaluddin presents similar facts and legal questions. Kamaluddin, also a forest official, faces criminal proceedings initiated by the same complainant family under comparable circumstances. The timing and nature of complaints against him also suggest a pattern of retaliatory litigation aimed at forest officials discharging their statutory duties.

32. However, the same considerations regarding protection under Section 74 of the Forest Act, territorial jurisdiction, and prima facie evaluation of offences apply equally to his case.

33. The questions relating to whether the proceedings are retaliatory, whether official immunity applies, whether the court has territorial jurisdiction, and whether a prima facie case exists, are fact-intensive and require full-fledged examination during trial.

34. The law is well-settled that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases where the abuse of process is manifest and clearly unjustifiable. ORDER In light of the foregoing discussion, this court is not persuaded to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings against the applicants at this stage. Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Application No. 1867 of 2018 is dismissed. 6 The summoning order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tanakpur, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 323 of 2018 titled "Champa Devi vs. Babu Lal & Another" as well as summoning order dated 11.03.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Tanakpur, District Champawat in Criminal Case No.677 of 2017, “Ramveer Vs. Babu Lal & another”, shall remain in force. The connected application concerning Kamaluddin is also dismissed for the same reasons. No order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani, J) Dated: 01.04.2025 NR/ 7