1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in P.O.R.No.878/94, dated 30.01.2026, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sirpur-T Easgaon, Kumrambheem Asifabad District, registered for the offences under Section 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) & (vii) under Section 58 of the TG Forest Act, 1967 (for short, ‘TGF Act’) and Sections 27 and 29 punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (for short, ‘WLP Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

               2.1. On 30.01.2026, basing on the reliable source of information, respondent No.2 and his staff proceed to Compt. No.89 of Easgaon Beat and found that the petitioner was cutting some teak and non-teak trees with the axe and the staff immediately proceeded to the spot. The he immediately informed the same to the higher authorities and enquired into the matter in detail and found that 66 teak trees and 30 cart load fuelwood were damaged in 4.89 hectares of area. Hence, the present complaint.

3. Heard Mr. D. Pochaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared through video conference, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

               4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature, as it is pertaining to grabbing of the forest land. Hence, the ingredients of the offences under Section 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) & (vii) under Section 58 of TGF Act and Sections 27 and 29 punishable under Section 51 of the WLP Act are not attracted.

               4.2. He further submitted that the Government had issued G.O.Rc.No.2518/99-S2 dated 31.07.1999, G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 07.02.1989, G.O.Ms.No.445 dated 21.10.1986, allotting the land to the grandfather and father of the petitioner, as they were Bengal refugees. The petitioner is in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts. in Sy.No.1/153/3 and his son is in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.4.15 gts. and Ac.0.20 gts. in Sy.Nos.2/254/1 and 1/186/1 respectively and the Tahasildar, Kagaznagar Mandal, had issued possession certificate, ownership of trees/forest produce certificate and also a ‘C’ form.

               4.3. He further submitted the when the forest officials are trying interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s mother and others, they filed W.P.No.29090 of 2025 and this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition on 23.09.2025, directed all the parties to maintain status quo as on that day and if the petitioner are found to be in possession of the forest land and if the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioners are not in rightful possession of the forest land, they are at liberty to take action in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, no action was taken by the forest officials.

               4.4. Subsequently, the petitioner and others have approached this Court and filed W.P.No.30910 of 2025 questioning the action of the respondent No.3 therein in not disposing of the application dated 01.10.2025 of the petitioners for plants/trees felling/cutting permission i.e., Neelgiri and Bamboo plants, etc., in the subject survey numbers land, and the said writ petition was disposed of directing respondent No.5 therein to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 11.11.2025. However, respondent No.2, without taking any action pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.Nos.29020 and 30910 of 2025, lodged the present complaint by making omnibus allegations, as a counter blast.

               4.5. He further submitted that the petitioner has not entered into the forest land and did not damage any teak poles or fuel wood, as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner is a refugee and settled at Nazrulnagar village and pursuant to the G.O.s, the petitioners’ father and grandfather were in possession of the subject property since decades and thereafter, the petitioner and his family members are continued in the possession of the subject property and the Tahasildar, Kagaznagar also issued possession certificate. Respondent No.2 lodged the complaint by giving a criminal colour with a malafide intention to harass the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor :

               5.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on 30.01.2026, the Forest Officials identified that the petitioner and others entered into the Easgoan Reserve Forest in Compartment No.89 of Village No.9 shivar forest locality with an intention to claim the right for the purpose of podu cultivation. The petitioner and others have cleared 4.89 hectors of forest land, which is a Government property of Easgoan Beat of Vempally Section and cut down 128 Teak poles and 30 cart load fire wood and the forest beat officer, after conducting the panchanama in the presence of the two independent witnesses, seized the said material worth of Rs.67,479/-. The petitioner without having any manner of right illegally trespassed into the reserved forest and caused damaged to the trees and felling in the process of grabbing forest land for his wrongful gain. Hence, the offences under Section 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) & (vii) under Section 58 of TGF Act and Sections 27 and 29 punishable under Section 51 of the WLP Act are attracted.

               5.2. The subject property claimed in W.P.Nos.29020 and 30910 of 2025 and the allegations made in the complaint are different and distinct, especially this Court while disposing of W.P.No.29020 of 2025, directed all the parties to maintain status quo. Even according to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any permission from the competent authority, the petitioner is not entitled to cut the trees. The investigation is under progress. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

Analysis

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 30.01.2026, wherein he specifically stated that the petitioner illegally trespassed into the forest land in Compartment No.89 of Easgoan beat of Vempally Section and illegally cut down 66 teak trees, non teak trees and 30 card load fuelwood were damaged in 4.89 hectors of area and the Forest Officials seized teak wood and other wood by conducting a panchanama in the presence of two independent witnesses and assessed the value of the said material to a tune of Rs.67,479/-.

7. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, without having any permission, illegally trespassed into the forest land in Compartment No.89 and cut down teak and non teak trees in an extent of 4.89 hectors with an intention to encroach upon the said forest land t claim the rights for the purpose of Podu cultivation. Whereas, the case of the petitioner is the he is in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts. in Sy.No.1/153/3 and his son is in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.4.15 gts. and Ac.0.20 gts. in Sy.Nos.2/254/1 and 1/186/1 respectively and the Tahasildar, Kagaznagar Mandal, issued possession certificate and he has not entered into the forest area as alleged in the complaint. The property clamed in W.P.No.29020 of 2025 and property mentioned in the present complaint are different and distinct. Whether the petitioner entered upon the forest land in Compartment No.89 or not; whether the petitioner and others have cut down the teak and non teak tress and removed other wood in an area of 4.89 hectors or not and; whether the subject property claimed in the writ petitions and the subject property mentioned in the preset criminal petition are one and the same or not, are disputed questions of facts and the same have to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress and the same cannot be adjudicated and decided in a quash petition at threshold.

8. From a perusal of the order dated 23.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.29020 of 2025, it reveals that this Court while disposing of the said writ petition directed all the parties to maintain status quo as on that date and also further observed that if the petitioners therein are found to be in possession of the forest land and if the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioners are not in rightful possession of the forest land, they are at liberty to take action in accordance with law.

9. Even according to the parties, the Investigating Officer had issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to put-forth his grievance by submitting reply to the said notice by raising all the pleas, which are available to him including the grounds raised in the present criminal petition, and also is entitled to submit all the documents, which are in his possession to the Investigating Officer.

10. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly. The said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others ((2021) 19 SCC 401), wherein it was emphasised that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage.

11. For the foregoing reasons and the precedents decisions, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings by exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS at this juncture.

12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are confined for the purpose of deciding this case only.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.