Harish Chandra vs State of U.P.& Anr.

K.K. Misra, J.—Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri H.A. Alvi, learned A.G.A.

This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the complaint filed against the petitioner and the impugned summoning order dated 20122003 passed by the learned Magistrate.

Learned Counsel for the applicant mainly contended that the complaint is mala fide it has been lodged at the behest of a State Minister who was having grudge against the applicant. He also argued that the trees in question were cut after obtaining permission from the competent authority. In this regard learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Annexures I & II to the application. AnnexureI is the application given by the petitioner to the District Horticulture Officer, Lucknow seeking permission to cut the trees and AnnexureII is the report submitted by the Forest SubInspector to the District Horticulture Officer, Lucknow and the permission granted to the applicant by the District Horticulure Officer, Lucknow for cutting the trees. Thus the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that in spite of the fact that permission was granted by the District Horticulure Officer, Lucknow for cutting the trees, a complaint has been got lodged by the Forest Range Officer at the behest of a State Minister who has having grudge against the applicant. Thus, he submits that the complaint is mala fide and prays for its quashing.

Sri H.A. Alvi, learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the complaint is not mala fide. It was further argued that the permission for cutting the trees in respect of disputed plots mainly plot No. 470 was not granted.

From a perusal of AnnexureII, I find that permission for cutting the trees grown in the village Kishunapur (Madaripur) was granted and the summoning order also shows that complaint was also lodged in respect of the trees grown in the village Kishunapur (Madaripur). Thus it is found that the applicant cut only those trees for which permission was granted by the District Horticulure Officer, Lucknow.

AnnexureIV and V also shows that the applicant and the Hon''ble State Minister was not having good terms. AnnexureIV is the copy of the letter sent by the State Minister to the Hon''ble Chief Minister making a complaint against the applicant and AnnexureV is the complaint made by the applicant against the State Minister and sent to the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to The Governor alleging harassment at the hands of the State Minister. From these two Annexures it is clear that the State Minister had certainly some grudge against the applicant and he got the impugned complaint lodged against the applicant mala fidely.

In view of the above facts, I find that the impugned complaint lodged against the applicant was mala fide and on this ground alone the impugned summoning order passed on the basis of the said complaint is liable to be quashed. Moreover, due permission was granted by the District Horticulure Officer, Lucknow to the applicant for cutting those trees.

In the result, the application is allowed. The complaint in question, AnnexureVII to the application and the impugned summoning order dated 20122003, AnnexureVI to the application are hereby quashed.

Application allowed.