CRL.M.C./2075/2016 of MUNNA ANSARI Vs STATE OF DELHI & ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 2075/2016■MUNNA ANSARI '..... PetitionerRepresented by: Mr. Satish Pandey, Mr. AbdulQadir, Advs.

versus

STATE OF DELHI & ANR.

RespondentRepresented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with SISandeep Yadav PS Mehrauli.

+CRL.M.C. 2105/2016MUNNA ANSARI

PetitionerRepresented by: Mr. Satish Pandey, Mr. AbdulQadir, Advs.versus& ANR.ANR.RespondentRepresented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with SISandeep Yadav PS Mehrauli.

STATE OF DELHI & ANR.ANR.

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

ORDER19.10.2016

1. Two FIRs were registered against the petitioner on the complaint ofSahiram Bishnoi, Section Officer, DDA, i.e. FIR No.1173/2013 dated 28^*^December, 2013 under Sections 8/24 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act,

CRL.M.C. 2075/2016 & CRL.M.C. 2105/2016

Signature Not Verified

Page 1 of 4

1994 (in short DPTA) wrongly noted as Delhi Trees Conservation Act, 1994and the second being FIRNo.556/2014 dated 12"^ April, 2014 under Section26(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

2. By these two petitions, the petitioner seeks quashing of the aforesaidFIRs. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not atall concerned with the deforestation activities. Even as the per videographydone the petitioner was not found at the spot. The DPTA is not applicable tothe Mehrauli The in .the are inregion. allegations charge-sheet cryptic nature and the of the two offences are not made out. Since oningredients the face of the allegations in the FIR no offence is made out the above-notedFIRs are liable to be quashed.

3. In FIR No. 1173/2013 under Sections 8/24 of DPTA the complainantalleged that Sanjay Van at Mehrauli is reserved forest area and for the lastfew days many trees and plants have been cut at Nazaria Peer (Dargah AshikAllah). On 28^^ December, 2013 he caught the President of Nazaria Peernamely Munna Ansari and his four associates red-handed cutting the treesand also seized their instruments. He.made call to the PGR at 100 numberand in the meantime Munna Ansari called 40-50 people living in the Dargahand managed to escape from there, also assaulted the guards of the forestdepartment and threatened that in future if they came to the Dargah they willbe buried. He also abused the other DDA staff. FIR also noted that on 7December, 2013 these people had removed trees by the help of JCB forwhich separate FIR was registered and there was case pending at theNational Green Tribunal as well and on 26^^ December, 2013 theunauthorized construction done in the area was also removed. It is allegedthat Munna Ansari was indulging in non-forest activities in the forest area

CRL.M.C 2075/2016 & CRL.M.C. 2105/2016

and despite being stopped he threatens the officers, cuts the trees, puts themon fire, encroaches and causes harm to the fauna and flora of the forest.

4. Section 8/24 of the DPTA provides as under:

"8. Restrictions on felling and removal of trees.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for thetime being in force or in any custom or usage or contract andexcept as provided in this Act or the rules made thereunder, noshall fell or remove or of tree or forestperson dispdse any produce in any land, whether in this ownership or occupancy orotherwise, except with the previous permission of the TreeOfficer. n n

Provided that if the tree is not immediately felled, therewould be grave danger to life or property or traffic, the ownerof the land take immediate action to fell such tree andmay report the fact to the Tree Officer within twenty-four hours ofsuch felling.

24. Penalty.-(1) Any person who contravenes any of theprovisions of this Act or rules or orders made thereunder shall,on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which mayextend to one or which extend to one thousand year may rupeesor with both."

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that theingredients of the offence are not made out on the face of the allegations" inthe FIR is incorrect. No material has been shown as to how DPTA is notapplicable to Mehrauli region despite the fact that Sanjay Van has beendeclared reserved forest and even if not declared reserved forest, thecutting of the tree would still be an offence under Section 8/24 of the DPTA.The non-presence of Munna Ansari at the spot has been explained by the.complainant for the reason he called out 40-50 people and managed toescape.

CRL.M.C. 2075/2016 CRL.M.C. 2105/2016

6. In FIR No.556/2014. under Section 26(h) of the Indian Forest Act (inshort the IF Act) the corriplainant Sahiram Bishnoi, Section Officer, DDAalleged that Munna Ansari, President Nazaria Peer was indulging inunauthorized construction activity and causing harm to the reserved forestand pursuant to the orders of the National/Green Tribunal unauthorizedconstruction was demolished on .26 All December, 2013. However '' ' again- ' ' ^unauthorized construction had been made at Nazaria Peer and Madarsa forwhich written complaints were made on December, 2013, 4^^ January,'• , ' ' ' ' n ' . ' '2014 and 18^^ March, 2014 to-the Police Station. It is further alleged thatdespite the written complaint these people were not refraining' from goingahead with the unauthorized construction and on the night of 11 April,2014 Munna Ansari had got constructed, tin shed and thus cariying onencroachment and unauthorized activity in the area.

7. Section 26 of the IF Act provides for acts prohibited in the reserved ^forest and as per Section 26(1 )(h) any person who clears or breaks up anyland cultivation or any other purpose shall be punishable, for tenn whichmay extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ?500, or withboth, in addition to such compensation for damage done to .the forest as theconvicting Court may direct to be paid.

8. As noted above,, Sanjay Van is reserved forest area and the actsalleged by the petitioner are punishable under-Section 26(i)(h) of the IF Act.9. ; On the contentions raised, this Court finds no, reason to quash theFIRs. Petitions are disrnissed.

OCTOBER 19,2016/'ga'

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

CRLM.C. 2075/2016 & CRLM.C. 2105/2016

Page 4 of 4