Forest Officials Not “Police Officers” Under CrPC, Cannot Investigate IPC Offences: Telangana High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice J. Sreenivas Rao has partly allowed a writ petition challenging a Preliminary Offence Report (POR) registered by forest officials after allegations that the petitioners, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, forced entry into a locked base camp/check post inside a tiger reserve, assaulted a camp protection watcher, and obstructed him from discharging official duties. The Court held that forest officials are empowered to initiate and investigate offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, but do not have authority to investigate offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the POR was quashed to the extent it invoked IPC offences, while the proceedings were permitted to continue for the alleged Wild Life Act violations, leaving it open to pursue IPC-related remedies in accordance with law.
According to the record, the incident occurred during the night when a forest protection watcher on duty at a base camp check post reported that certain persons allegedly arrived under the influence of alcohol, demanded opening of the gate, and allegedly assaulted him upon refusal. Based on this complaint, forest officials conducted a preliminary enquiry and panchanama and registered a Preliminary Offence Report invoking provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act as well as Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 of the IPC.
The petitioners contended that they had not committed any offence, that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were absent, and that forest officials were competent to proceed only under the Wild Life (Protection) Act and not under the IPC. The respondents opposed the petition, asserting that forest officials were empowered to investigate the matter and that disputed factual issues required investigation.
The Court observed that “based on the complaint lodged by the Deputy Range Officer, Mannanur, along with the Forest Beat Officer, Mannanur (North), and the Mannanur Section Staff, and after conducting a preliminary offence enquiry and panchanama, proceedings were initiated and a crime was registered against the petitioners.”
While dealing with the allegation that the petitioners had entered the tiger reserve with permission, the Court observed that “there are specific allegations in the preliminary offence report as well as live panchanama that the petitioners forcefully entered the locked base camp inside the Tiger Reserve Forest and manhandled the camp protection watcher causing hurt and obstructing him from discharging his official duties.” It further recorded that “whether the petitioners entered the tiger reserve forest legally with permission or trespassed illegally and whether they assaulted the camp protection watcher are disputed questions of fact which have to be determined during the course of investigation.”
On the question of jurisdiction, the Court examined precedents and observed that “forest officials are not police officers within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore have no authority to investigate penal offences under the IPC.” The Court noted that “the Wild Life (Protection) Act provides a complete mechanism and empowers forest officials only to initiate and conduct proceedings in respect of offences under the Act.”
The Court further observed that “even if the allegations pertaining to offences under the IPC are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the commission of any offence in law due to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the investigating authority.” It recorded that “continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”
The Court directed that “the proceedings in POR S. No.04 of 2022 dated 28.03.2022 are quashed to the extent of offences under Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the offences under Sections 27 and 56 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings.”
“This order will not preclude the forest officials to work out their remedies in accordance with law insofar as the penal offence under the IPC, if so they are aggrieved. The writ petition is allowed-in-part,” and that “pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed,” with “no costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Naraparaju Avaneesh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Forests; Assistant Government Pleader for Home
Case Title: Mr. Kolichelimi Sai Rohit & Others v. State of Telangana & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No.29910 of 2022
Bench: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao
