Civil dispute not shield for crime: Court refuses to set aside ‘illegal tree felling’ case

Justice L Victoria Gowri said that competing claims over ownership and possession must be tested at trial rather than while quashing proceedings.

Civil litigation does not automatically bar criminal action

• A major issue before the court was whether the pending civil suit was enough to stop the criminal prosecution.
• Justice Gowri answered that question in the negative, observing that the mere existence of civil proceedings cannot extinguish criminal allegations where the ingredients of a criminal offence are otherwise disclosed.
• If the allegations disclose trespass, dishonest removal of property, or mischief, “the prosecution cannot be interdicted merely because title or possession is also disputed before a civil court,” the judgment said.
• The court found that the prosecution’s case was not founded solely on competing title documents but on specific allegations that standing trees were cut, removed and sold.
• The dividing line is not the existence of a civil dispute, but the existence or absence of criminality. A transaction may give rise to both civil and criminal consequences, the court said, explaining why the prosecution could not be halted merely because rival claims over the property were already before a civil court.
• A family land dispute over eucalyptus trees may be pending before a civil court, but that cannot automatically erase allegations of theft and trespass, the court held.
• The high court said that the competing claims over ownership and possession must be tested at trial rather than in quashing proceedings.

Allegations of illegal felling of eucalyptus trees

According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant was the owner and person in possession of agricultural wet land measuring 1.65.50 hectares at Virachilai village in Pudukkottai. A portion of the land had been cultivated with six-year-old eucalyptus trees.

The complainant alleged that on December 19, 2024, he came to know that eucalyptus trees standing on the land had been cut and removed the previous day. The value of the trees was estimated at around Rs 1 lakh.

Police alleged that the petitioners, along with another accused, trespassed into the property, cut the trees and removed them. A timber merchant named Sadiq was also alleged to have assisted in cutting, transporting and disposing of the eucalyptus wood.

Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 303(2) (theft) and 329 (criminal trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

‘Purely civil dispute’

• Seeking quashing of the case, the petitioners argued that the dispute was entirely civil in nature and stemmed from rival claims over the property.
• They pointed out that civil litigation concerning the same land was already pending and claimed that they were merely assisting another family member, Raman, who asserted rights over the property and the eucalyptus trees.
• The petitioners further contended that no eucalyptus wood or sale proceeds had been recovered from them.
• They argued that the essential ingredient of dishonest intention required for theft was absent because any action taken was under a bona fide claim of right.
• They also challenged the manner in which the case was initiated, arguing that the application seeking registration of an FIR was not accompanied by an affidavit as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Priyanka Srivastava v State of Uttar Pradesh.

Key evidence: Timber merchant’s statement

Opposing the petition, the state relied heavily on the statement of a witness identified as timber merchant Sadiq.

According to the prosecution, Sadiq specifically stated that he assisted the petitioners in cutting, removing and selling the eucalyptus trees. The prosecution described him as a material witness who directly spoke about the role played by the accused in the alleged offence.

Justice Gowri noted that if the witness statement was accepted at face value, it could not be said that allegations of theft were completely absent.

“The statement of LW-5 (Sadiq) assumes importance,” the court observed while noting that the witness had allegedly spoken about his participation in the cutting, removal and disposal of the trees at the instance of the petitioners.

When can cutting trees amount to theft?

The judgment also examined whether standing trees could become the subject matter of theft. “Standing trees attached to the earth are ordinarily immovable property. However, once they are cut and severed from the earth, they become movable property,” the court said.

As a result, allegations that the accused cut the eucalyptus trees and subsequently removed them from the property could potentially attract the offence of theft, the court held.

No mini-trial at quashing stage

• Rejecting the plea for quashing, the court emphasised that disputed factual questions could not be decided under its inherent powers.
• The judge observed that issues such as who was actually in possession of the land, whether the trees belonged to the complainant or another branch of the family, whether the accused acted under a genuine claim of right and whether prosecution witnesses were trustworthy were all matters requiring evidence and cross-examination.
• The court also rejected the argument that the absence of recovery of timber was fatal to the prosecution, holding that offences such as theft can be proved through oral and circumstantial evidence as well.
• The court must only see whether there is ground for proceeding and not whether there is ground for conviction, Justice Gowri said, while concluding that sufficient prima facie material existed to continue the prosecution.

Final order

Holding that the case involved competing factual narratives that could only be resolved through a full-fledged trial, the high court dismissed the criminal original petition.

The court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the quashing plea and would not influence the trial on merits.

It also granted liberty to the accused to raise all legal and factual defences before the trial court and directed the judicial magistrate, Thirumayam, to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.