Telangana High Court: Forest Officials Cannot Probe IPC Offences
Justice J. Srinivas Rao clarified that any attempt by forest officials to register an FIR under the IPC or to investigate IPC offences results in a fundamentally defective process.
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court has reaffirmed that forest officials are not empowered to investigate offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even when such allegations arise alongside offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Justice J. Srinivas Rao clarified that any attempt by forest officials to register an FIR under the IPC or to investigate IPC offences results in a fundamentally defective process. He further held that when offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act are accompanied by IPC sections, only the police are competent to investigate, and any mixed or hybrid investigation by forest staff is legally impermissible.
The judge was hearing a petition filed by K. Sai Rohit and five others from Hyderabad, against whom a complaint was lodged by the forest department alleging illegal entry into a prohibited area of the Amrabad Tiger Reserve during the late-night hours of March 27, 2022, around 1.10 am, and assault on a forest protection watcher on duty. The complaint alleged that the accused were under the influence of alcohol and that, despite vehicle movement being prohibited at the Mannanur check post after 9 pm, they claimed to have crossed the check post around 10.15 pm and had dinner at Mannanur village.
Based on these allegations, forest officials prepared a preliminary offence report for offences under Sections 27 and 56 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and under Sections 351 read with 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant) and 333 (grievous hurt to deter a public servant from duty) of the IPC.
The petitioners contended that forest officials lack the authority and jurisdiction to investigate IPC offences and are empowered only to investigate offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. They argued that the continuation of proceedings in respect of IPC offences under Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 was liable to be quashed.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the forest department argued that there was no bar on initiating proceedings for criminal acts and submitted that the investigation would determine whether such offences were committed.
After examining the statutory scheme of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and relevant judicial precedents, including Supreme Court rulings on abuse of process, Justice Srinivas Rao held that continuation of an investigation into IPC offences by forest officials would be without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the investigation insofar as it related to IPC Sections 351, 332 and 333. However, it declined to interfere with the proceedings under Sections 27 and 56 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, holding that disputed questions of fact relating to the alleged illegal entry into the tiger reserve and the assault on forest personnel must be examined during a lawful investigation under the Act. The Court also clarified that the order would not prevent forest officials from seeking appropriate remedies under the IPC through competent authorities.
