In a writ petition filed before the Telangana High Court against a Preliminary Offence Report (POR) registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 27 and 56 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act), and Section 351 read with Sections 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice J. Sreenivas Rao partly allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in the POR to the extent of offences under the IPC.
On 27-03-2022, a person on duty at the base camp, check post reported to his seniors that a few persons, influenced by alcohol, had attacked him. The forest personnel proceeded to the Durvasula check post, which fell within a Tiger Conservation Wildlife Protection Zone. A car was found with the accused persons, who stated that they had come from Hyderabad.
Although no vehicles are permitted to pass the Mannanur check post after 9 PM, the accused claimed that they had crossed it at 10:15 PM. The complainant stated that the accused persons came to the chest post at 1 AM and threatened him to open the gate. Upon refusal to do so, they assaulted the complainant, and fearing for his safety, the complainant ran away to inform his superiors. In light of this, the impugned POR was prepared on Form-A.
The Court noted that, based on the complaint by the Deputy Range Officer, the Forest Beat Officer, the Mannanur Section Staff, respondent 4 conducted a preliminary office enquiry and initiated proceedings through respondent 5 and registered a crime against the petitioners. It was stated that the POR and the live panchnama contained specific allegations that the petitioners forcibly entered the locked base camp within the Tiger Reserve Forest and manhandled the camp protection watcher, thereby obstructing him from discharging his duties.
The Court referred to various cases and stated that the forest officials are not police officers within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and that they do not have any authority to investigate penal offences under IPC. The Court stated that it had also been clarified that forest officials are entitled to initiate proceedings and conduct investigations into offences under the WLP Act, since the Act itself confers statutory powers upon them.
The Court found it relevant to mention that even if the allegations regarding offences under the IPC are taken at their face value, they did not disclose the commission of any offence in law, due to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the investigating authority. It was held that the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and to a violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Thus, the Court quashed the proceedings in the impugned POR to the extent of offences under Section 351, read with Sections 332 and 333 of the IPC, but refrained from doing so for the offences under Section 27 and 56 of the WLP Act. The Court clarified that the present order would not preclude the forest officials from working out their remedies for the penal offences under the IPC.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Naraparaju Avaneesh
For Respondent – Government Pleader, Assistant Government Pleader
