Fahad Hanif Versus Secretary Forest and Wildlife Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit

Order

Raja Shakeel Ahmad, J .--- Through the instant petition filed under section 561-A Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused sought quashment of impugned enquiry proceedings initiated by the respondents and also quashment of impugned summonses Nos. MG/PWG 1/2012 dated 27/01/2025, 30/01/2025 and 17/02/2025.

2. Precise facts of the case leading to present controversy revealed from the case file are that, the present accused found a snow leopard cub in injured and unconscious condition at Dirlay Pasture District Astore. The petitioner brought the Cub with him, and due to his Cure and timely provided proper medication the cub survived its life and after its complete recovery the petitioner called the Conservator Wildlife and handed over the Cub to him on 21/09/2026 which is now in custody of the department since then. On 27th January 2025 the Respondent No. 03/ DFO Parks and Wildlife Gilgit Ghizer issued impugned summonses to the petitioner in case No. MG/PWG 1/2012 dated 27th January, 2025 directing therein to the petitioner to appear before him on 29/01/2025 and explain, why not the expenditures involved in soft release of the snow leopard cub shall be charged on the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved from the same the petitioner filed the instant petition for quashment of the proceedings initiated against him

3. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the respondents are intended to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner through impugned summons/notices dated 27/01/2025, 30/01/2025 and 17/02/2025 by misusing their authority. The respondents issued fabricated notices upon the petition on the pretext of involvement in capturing the snow leopard cub in his possession while it is on the record that the petitioner rescued the injured snow leopard Cub form delay pasture and handed over the same after the complete recovery of cub through proper medication, in this regard the statement of the petitioner and video of the event is also available with the respondents, but the respondents instead of considering the replication of petitioner have initiated impugned proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of mala fide, malice and evil intentions. The respondents have initiated the enquiry proceedings with the sole intention to harass the petitioner. Such act of the respondents is stark violation of law and rules and flagrant violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner and a germane example of misuse and abuse of authority. The learned counsel further argued that it is a golden principle of law, justice and equity that "when a thing is required to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that particular manner" as such the act of respondents to initiate criminal proceedings is against the law and justice. Lastly, the learned counsel for petitioner prayed for the quashment of proceedings initiated by the respondents through impugned summonses/notices No. MG/PWG 1/2012 dated 27/01/2025, 30/01/2025 and 17/02/2025 issued by the respondents.

4. On the other hand, the learned Legal Advisor opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner involved in capturing the snow leopard cub from the wild and kept in captivity more than two months without informing the department, as such he has committed offence under sections 8, 10, 22, 24 and 29 of GB Wildlife Preservation Act, 1975. The petitioner should appear before the respondent No.3 for just decision of the matter. The petitioner instead of appearing before the Competent Court approached this Court in a hasty manner. Lastly, the learned Legal Advisor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard the arguments pro and contra at length and perused the record of the case along with relevant provision of the law, with the valuable assistance of counsel for the parties.

6. Although in the matter of quashing the criminal proceedings the trial must ordinarily be permitted to take its regular Course envisaged by law, and the provisions of 561-A Cr.P.C should be invoked in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded, but under section 561-A of Cr.P.C the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to "any order under the code of Criminal Procedure or, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice where an accused, in exceptional circumstances, demonstrates that the matter complained of, constitute a patent abuse of process of court, and continuation of trial is waste of time and futile exercise and from the facts no offence was made out. In my view for quashing of criminal proceedings inter alia are:- a. Jurisdictional defect b. Patent violation of some provisions of law c. The allegations as contained in the complaint even if believed no case is made out and continuation of the proceedings amounts to sheer abuse of process of court.

7. In the matter in hand, after perusal of proceedings taken by the respondents and allegations narrated in the contents of impugned summons dated 27th January 2025 issued by the Forest Magistrate/ Respondent No.3 against the present accused/petitioner; it transpires that, the respondents through the instant proceedings are intended to recover the expenditures involved in the release of snow leopard cub. Perusal of the GB Wildlife Protection Act, 1975 shows that no such provision is available. Furthermore, it is admitted fact of affairs available on record that, the petitioner/accused rescued a snow leopard cub from Astore "Dirlay Pasture" found there in injured and unconscious condition, and after proper treatment and recovery the same was handed over the respondents. The video clip shown in court and statement of the petitioner recorded by the respondents on 26/11/2024 available in the case file of the respondents also transpires that the Conservator Wildlife had taken the custody of the cub on 21/09/2026 which is now in custody of the department. As such the allegations regarding commission of offences under sections 8, 10, 22, 24 and 29 GB Wildlife Act, 1975 against the accused/petitioner are not made out. The record of the case suggest that the petitioner should be given a letter of appreciation for his efforts made for saving a precious wildlife but instead, the respondents have initiated criminal proceedings against him which is not justified and smacks a lot.

8. The object of section 561-A Cr. P.C whereby inherent power is conferred upon this Court is to do the real and substantial justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. In view of the above, it is to be first determined whether the facts alleged in the complaint disclose commission of any criminal offence on the part of applicants/accused or whether the criminal proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intentions or coerce the applicant. On the basis of facts discussed supra, in my humble opinion the proceedings against the petitioner/accused as contained in the complaint even if believed no case is made out and continuation of the proceedings amounts to sheer abuse of process of court which amounts to abuse of process of law.

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that, this application under section 561-A filed by the applicant/petitioner is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the respondents through impugned summonses/notices Nos. MG/PWG 1/2012 dated 27/01/2025, 30/01/2025 and 17/02/2025 are hereby quashed with all allied proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner.

10. This petition is hereby allowed and disposed of accordingly. File.

JK/21/GB Petition allowed.