THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4235 of 2011 ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-5 in F.O. No.34 of 2011-2012 on the file of Wildlife Nandyal Division, Rudravaram Range, Kurnool District.
The facts leading to filing of the present petition briefly are as follows: On 11.05.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. the F.B.O. of Rudravaram range seized the vehicles, TATA 909 Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 03 W 7085 and Bajaj Discovery Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 21 AD 7861, in between the villages of Boyalakuntla and Deebakuntla. The Forest official also seized 10 Nos. of red sander wood pieces weighing 248 kgs., i.e. Rs.60/- per kgs., total Rs.14,880/-, 78 Sandra Chikkudu and 325 bags of Saddala with weight of 50 kgs and 20 Nos. of Pottubags.
After preparing the seizure report, a case was registered under Section 29(2)(B) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 of A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1969 and Sections 447, 427, 379 of I.P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent- State.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no allegations are made against the petitioner/A-5. Hence, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ A-5.
[1] The Apex Court in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab , held as hereunder:
"Cases may also arise where the allegations in the F.I.R. or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. In such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In this case it would be legitimate to the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person."
[2] In State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal the Apex Court after having surveyed the entire case law on the point has laid down certain indicia with reference to which, a High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Let me consider the facts of the case on hand in the light of the principles enunciated in the cases cited supra. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner herein is A-5. As per the allegations made in the Staff Special Proceedings and Form No.A, the petitioner along with others had been transporting the Red Sander wood in violation of the provisions of the Forest Act. A perusal of the record prima facie discloses the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner/ A-5 punishable under Section 29(2)(B) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1969 under Sections 447, 427 and 379 I.P.C.
The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry, at the initial stage of investigation, as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint/F.I.R. It is settled principle of law that the Court shall not stifle the legitimate investigation. The Court has to take into consideration of seriousness of the allegations made in the complaint/F.I.R. while considering the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in F.O. No.34 of 2011 on the file of Rudravaram Range, Kurnool District.
Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J June 23, 2014.
Bv THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4235 of 2011 23.06.2014 bv
[1] AIR 1960 SC 866
[2] AIR 1982 SC 604