P.RAMAKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.3 of 2016 of Prathipadu P.S., East Godavari District.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the 4th respondent herein approached the 3rd respondent and gave a written complaint stating that Thotapally Forest was notified as Reserve Forest under G.O.BP.No.289, dtd. 23/12/1937 which is situated in Sy.No. 1 of Chintaluru village of Prathipadu Mandal. It is stated that ht petitioner Firm has obtained mining lease in Sy No.262 of Gajjanapudi village and alleged to have illegally excavated six lakh metric tones of laterite mineral by altering Forest Boundaries from the year 1997 to 2005 instead of mining in the allotted area. It is further stated that the District Collector, East Godavari and the District Forest Officer, Kakinada issued instructions to file a criminal case and on their instructions, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered as Crime No.3 of 2016 against the petitioner under Ss. 447, 379 and 420 IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that he is innocent of the alleged offences with which he has been charged and is falsely implicated without there being any material to connect him with any of the alleged offences. The main grievance of the petitioner is that initiation of criminal prosecution without issuing any notice and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, after lapse of 10 years is illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that the 6th respondent lodged a complaint at the behest of the District Collector, who has submitted report to the Government while issuing G.O.Ms.No.119 stating that the area applied by the petitioner Firm do not fall in Reserve Forest area and the Survey number is registered in village accounts as "KONDA PORAMBOKE". There is an inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the complaint and absolutely there is no explanation in the complaint for filing of such an inordinate delay. Even though the petitioner was permitted to carry on quarry operations by the concerned authorities by following the procedure contemplated under law, without initiating any proceedings under the Forest Act for the alleged encroachment, launching of prosecution is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 12/1/2016 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim direction that the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2016 of Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District, shall continue. However, the petitioner shall not be arrested in the meanwhile.