‘Not police officers’: Telangana High Court quashes IPC charges filed by forest officers in 2022 Amrabad assault case

The judgment also permitted the forest officials to seek alternative legal paths if they feel aggrieved by the assault, stating that the order “will not preclude the forest officials from working out their remedies in accordance with law insofar as the penal offence under IPC” through the appropriate police channels rather than internal forest department reports.

Assault on forest officials

On March 28, 2022, forest officials of Mannanur range in Amrabad forest division of Nagarkurnool district registered a Preliminary Offence Report (POR) against the petitioners. The individuals were charged with violations under sections 27 and 56 of the WLP Act, as well as sections 332 and 333 of IPC, which relate to criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servants from their duty.

The petitioners’ counsel contended that the forest officials have no authority or jurisdiction to conduct investigations into offences under the IPC, and that they are entitled to probe offences under the Wildlife Protection Act.

The Government Pleader, representing the Forest Department, submitted that Section 56 of the WLP Act empowers forest officials to conduct an investigation into offences under IPC and that there was no bar to initiate proceedings for offences under the provisions of the WLP Act or those alleged to have been committed under the provisions of the IPC.

‘Forest officials not police officers’

After considering the submissions and perusal of material on record, the court took into consideration several judgments of High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Karnataka to point out that the “forest officials are not police officers within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, they have no authority to investigate penal offences under IPC.”

The court observed that it has been clarified that forest officials are entitled to initiate proceedings and conduct investigations into offences under the WLP Act, since the Act itself confers statutory powers on them.

“It is relevant to mention that even if the allegations pertaining to offences under IPC are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the commission of any offence in law, due to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the investigating authority,” the court observed, stressing that the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, the court quashed the proceedings to the extent of offences under IPC sections 351, read with 332 and 333. The court was not inclined to quash the proceedings regarding the offences under sections 27 and 56 of the WLP Act.