Judicial interference in probe should be limited to violation of fundamental rights or legal procedures: High Court

Kolkata: Refusing to quash FIRs against a Panchayat pradhan, two elected members and one co-accused for “unlawfully” felling trees worth Rs 3 lakh on government land, Calcutta High Court observed that judicial interference in the investigative process should be limited to rare cases where fundamental rights or legal procedures are blatantly violated.

The Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was moved by the petitioners who are members of the Haipur Gram Panchayat, Contai-I (East Midnapore). They sought quashing of the FIRs against them by private respondents on allegations that they allegedly fell 65 Akashmoni trees worth Rs 3 lakh on government land on June 25 and 80 trees on June 20. Various Sections of IPC were slapped against the petitioners.

Alleging procedural irregularities on the part of police, the petitioners’ counsel submitted that although offences were prior to July 1, 2024 and cases were registered under IPC Sections after July 1, the police should have followed procedures under the BNSS. They alleged the arrest of co-accused Ananta Jana was done without notice under Section 41A CrPC (Section 35(3) BNSS).

The petitioners argued that the FIRs are legally untenable as investigation should have been conducted under the special law West Bengal Trees (Protection & Conservation in Non-Forest Areas) Act 2006 and sanction should have been obtained from the state government or competent authority as required under Section 12 of this Act. It was also submitted that private respondents had no locus standi as the alleged act was committed on government land.

The state’s counsel said while FIRs were initially registered under IPC, the probe was conducted in accordance with provisions under BNSS. Raids conducted to recover tree logs were duly video recorded in compliance with Section 105, BNSS.

The court found that FIRs and arrest of Jana were lawful. “The contention that procedural irregularities exist due to transition from IPC to BNSS lacked merit”. HC also observed that the special law doesn’t preclude the prosecution of theft under the IPC. “The petitioners, holding public office, have been implicated in theft of government property...”

Finding no procedural or legal irregularities warranting intervention, the court dismissed the petition, observing: “Judicial interference in the investigative process should be limited to rare cases where fundamental rights or legal procedures are blatantly violated.”