Kiran Raj

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings pending for over two decades against multiple accused persons in cases arising from alleged tree felling along the Maharana Distributary in Hanumangarh. The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent the abuse of the legal process and uphold the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The proceedings originated from complaints filed on August 30, 2002, by the Regional Forest Officer before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. The allegations pertained to tree felling along the embankments of the Maharana Distributary, which was designated as a protected forest division. The afforestation was managed by the Forest Department, and no authorization was sought before the trees were cut for the construction of a road between Village Janana and Maharana by the Public Works Department (PWD).

According to the complaint, in June 2001, the PWD initiated a project to construct a road from Janana to Maharana without consulting or informing the Forest Department. Contractors employed by PWD allegedly engaged laborers who cut down trees along the embankments of the Maharana Distributary. These trees were legally protected under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. Following the discovery of the tree felling, the Forest Department initiated inquiries and correspondence with the concerned authorities, but no corrective action was taken. Consequently, criminal complaints were filed against 17 individuals, including laborers, contractors, and officials from PWD and the Irrigation Department.

The complaints resulted in criminal proceedings under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, citing violations related to unauthorized tree felling and environmental degradation. The case was subsequently taken up by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra.

The accused, including contractors and officials, denied direct involvement in the alleged offences, asserting that the road construction was a government initiative undertaken without their direct instructions to cut trees. The defense also pointed out that there were no direct witnesses who could confirm that the accused personally engaged in tree felling. The accused argued that the criminal proceedings were unwarranted, as they were only performing their official duties and had no control over the actions of subcontractors and labourers.

Several compounding applications were submitted, particularly by M/s Ganesh Builders, the contractor responsible for road construction. On July 23, 2002, the company deposited an initial amount of ₹61,000 as part of the compounding process, with an assurance to pay any additional amounts determined later. Following an inquiry, the total computed amount was ₹3,73,200, leaving ₹3,12,200 unpaid. Since the remaining amount was not paid, criminal complaints continued against the contractor.

A parallel case, Criminal Regular Case No. 430/2015, emerged from FIR No. 781/25, wherein M/s Ganesh Builders deposited ₹41,000 on July 23, 2002. The total compounding amount was later computed as ₹2,90,400, leaving ₹2,49,400 unpaid. Due to the non-payment, separate criminal proceedings were initiated under Section 3 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and Sections 33, 42, 52, and 57 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953.

Over time, procedural delays arose due to challenges in serving notices to all accused. Some accused appeared before the trial court, while others remained unserved. Additionally, several accused passed away during the pendency of the case, leading to their names being removed from the proceedings.

The Court observed that the prolonged pendency of the trial had resulted in unnecessary hardship for the accused. The Court recorded: “The legal trajectory mentioned above is sufficient to say that the present case is a glaring example of the agony of an accused who has had to attend court proceedings repeatedly with no progress in the trial.”

The Court further noted: “The alleged offence does not carry a sentence of three years or more, yet the accused have been facing trial for an act which, according to them, they never committed.”

The Court stated the absence of direct evidence linking the accused to the tree felling: “There is no direct evidence to say that the persons arraigned as accused either cut down the trees or ordered the same.”

Further, the Court upheld the fundamental right to a speedy trial, stating: “Right to have a speedy trial is recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Court pointed out that many accused had not been served notices for over 23 years, making it unreasonable to continue the proceedings. The Court also noted that some accused individuals had limited financial means and lacked proper legal representation, preventing them from approaching the Court for relief.

Given the extraordinary delay and the lack of substantial evidence, the Court quashed the proceedings against all accused, including those who had not directly approached the Court. The Court held: “It is just and proper to extend the benefit of the present order in rem to all accused persons, irrespective of whether they have approached this Court or not, so as to uphold the principles of fairness, equity, and natural justice.”

The Court further ordered: “Criminal proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 431/2015 (Original Complaint No. 4/2003) and Criminal Regular Case No. 430/2015 (Original Complaint No. 3/2003) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, Hanumangarh, are hereby quashed.”

The quashing also extended to those accused persons who had not been served.

Case Title: Hari Singh & Another v. State of Rajasthan

Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8867/2024 & S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8868/2024

Bench: Justice Farjand Ali

[Read/Download order]