Encroachment on Forest Land Is a Continuing Offence; Private Ownership No Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash Complaint Against Retired Colonel for Illegal Rasta Construction

“When the environmental violation is ongoing, Section 468 CrPC has no application” - Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a notable judgment rejecting a plea to quash criminal proceedings initiated under forest conservation and land preservation laws. Justice H.S. Grewal ruled that since the alleged encroachment and illegal construction continued to exist, the offence constituted a “continuing wrong,” and therefore limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC did not apply.

The petitioners, including a retired Army Colonel, had challenged a 2017 complaint and 2018 summoning order relating to the alleged unauthorised construction of a 2.2 km road (rasta) on forest land in Karoran village, Mohali. They claimed the complaint was barred by limitation and that they were owners in possession of the land.

The Court dismissed the plea, holding that continued illegal use of protected land under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA) and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 amounted to an ongoing offence, not subject to statutory limitation.

“A Rasta That Still Exists Keeps the Offence Alive” – Ongoing Violation Cannot Be Quashed

Justice Grewal categorically held that the illegal road and felled trees were still unrectified, making the violation a continuing offence:

“The argument… that the complaint is barred by limitation in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C. is not acceptable as the rasta and a continuous cause of action are still in existence.” [Para 7]

The Court rejected the plea that the delay in the complaint filing should nullify the proceedings, citing the continuing nature of the violation and the ecological harm still being caused.

“Private Ownership Does Not Permit Violation of Forest Laws” – Court Dismisses Ownership Argument

The petitioners contended they had constructed the rasta on privately owned land, but the Court rejected this defence outright:

“Although the land might be under private ownership of the petitioners, they could not change the integrity of the forest.” [Para 3]

The Court emphasized that ecological restrictions under forest and environmental laws override ownership claims. The cutting of ten khair trees and other vegetation without Forest Department approval was a criminal offence under the Forest Conservation Act, Indian Forest Act, and PLPA.

“Prior Conviction Shows Habitual Violation” – Petitioners Not First-Time Offenders

The Court took serious note of the fact that Petitioner No. 1 (Col. Baljit Singh Sandhu Retd.) had already been convicted under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act in two earlier cases, and sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment in each.

“The petitioners are regular offenders… This establishes habitual disregard for forest protection norms.” [Para 4]

These prior convictions added weight to the prosecution's argument that the petitioners had shown consistent disregard for environmental laws and Supreme Court directions on forest conservation.

“Limitation Begins with Filing, Not Cognizance” – Court Relies on SC Ruling in Sarah Mathew

Addressing the core argument under Section 468 CrPC (limitation for taking cognizance), the Court cited the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases [(2014) 2 SCC 62]:

“The relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the institution of prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.” [Para 8]

The complaint dated 12.07.2017, based on damage reports from 2014 and 2016, was therefore within limitation due to the ongoing nature of the illegal activity.

Environmental Law Trumps Procedural Technicality

Dismissing the petition, the Court concluded: “This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order summoning the petitioners… The petition stands dismissed.” [Para 9]

This judgment reinforces the principle of environmental accountability, especially in cases of forest encroachment. The High Court clarified that ongoing ecological violations cannot be shielded by limitation laws, and that forest protection is a matter of continuing public interest, where procedural defences must yield to substantive environmental justice.

• Continuing offences under forest and environmental laws aren’t barred by limitation.

• Private land claims do not justify ecological violations under the Forest Conservation Act or PLPA.

• Past convictions for similar offences are relevant in evaluating the nature and seriousness of ongoing violations.

• Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to shield persistent and unlawful land use causing environmental degradation.

Date of Decision: 24 April 2025