DINESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor jointly submit that the controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohan Ram @ Manaram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2016(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1144, wherein the following order had been passed:- "This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1811/2015 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, District Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') against the petitioner. In the present case, the trial court vide order dtd. 19/11/2015 took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 41, 42/77 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953'). Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 by the Head Constable Sujan Singh of the Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer on 11/10/2015. It is contended that the offence punishable under Ss. 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 are non- cognizable offence and as per the provisions of Sub- Sec. (2) of Sec. 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer shall investigate into non- cognizable case without order of Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. It is argued that the FIR in the present case, could not have been registered because there was no order from the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. It is further argued that the trial court, without taking into consideration the above position of law, has illegally proceeded against the petitioner and has taken cognizance against him for the offences punishable under Ss. 41, 42/77 of the Act of 1953 vide order dtd. 19/11/2015. In support of above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Pintu Dey v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 9/4/2015 and Pappu Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 304. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc. petition and has argued that as per the provisions of Sec. 64 of the Act of 1953, any Police Officer has power to arrest any person without warrant against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been involved in any forest offence punishable with imprisonment for one month or upwords and, therefore, the police officer is also competent to register and investigate any FIR against any person in which the complaint is made for commission of offences under Ss. 41 and 42 of the Act of 1953. However, learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the punishment provided under Secs. 42 and 77 of the Act of 1953 are less than 3 years, therefore, the offences punishable under Secs. 42 and 77 of the Act of 1953 are non-cognizable offences. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 155 of CrPC reads as under:

(3.) In light of the aforequoted precedent law, the present misc. petition is allowed in the same terms and the order dtd. 23/12/2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Balotra in Complaint Case No. 1055/2017 (FIR No. 192/2016 Police Station Sindhari) and Case No. 1689/2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.