Forest Officials Not Police Officers, Cannot Probe IPC Offences: Telangana High Court

The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of the Preliminary Offence Report (POR) registered by forest authorities arising out of an incident alleged to have occurred within a Tiger Conservation Wildlife Protection Zone.

A Bench of Justice J. Sreenivas Rao held, “it has been specifically held 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, and it has also been clarified that the forest officials are entitled to initiate proceedings and conduct investigation in respect of offences under the WLP Act, since the Act itself confers statutory powers upon them. It is relevant to mention that even if the allegations pertaining to offences under the 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.”

Advocate Naraparaju Avaneesh appeared for the Petitioners.

According to the POR, the petitioners were alleged to have forcefully entered a locked base camp, threatened and manhandled a camp protection watcher, and obstructed him from discharging official duties. Proceedings were initiated for offences under Sections 27 and 56 of the WLP Act and Sections 351 r/w 332 and 333 of the IPC.

The petitioners contended that they had been falsely implicated and that forest officials had no jurisdiction to investigate IPC offences, though they could proceed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP) Act.

The Court held that forest officials are not “police officers” within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, cannot investigate or prosecute IPC offences. The Court reiterated that the WLP Act provides a complete procedure, empowering forest officials only in respect of offences under the Act, while IPC offences must be investigated by the police.

The Court further observed that continuation of IPC proceedings by forest authorities would amount to an abuse of the process of law, attracting the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).

However, the Court declined to quash proceedings under Sections 27 and 56 of the WLP Act, noting that allegations regarding illegal entry, assault, and obstruction of duty inside a tiger reserve raised disputed questions of fact, which must be examined during investigation.

Allowing the writ petition in part, the Court clarified that its order would not preclude forest officials from working out remedies in accordance with law insofar as IPC offences are concerned.

Cause Title: Kolichelimi Sai Rohit & Ors. v. The State of Telangana