The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by the State, thereby upholding the discharge of a woman accused of encroaching upon forest land in Mandi district.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, delivering the judgment on 21 August 2025, ruled that no case was made out against the accused under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal trespass) and Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act.
Background of the Case
The matter began when police registered an FIR alleging that the accused, Ghambo Devi, had encroached upon 0-0-9 bighas of government land. Following demarcation, authorities filed a charge sheet before the trial court. However, in April 2015, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandi, discharged her, citing earlier directions of the High Court which mandated registration of cases only when encroachment exceeded ten bighas.
Aggrieved by this decision, the State sought revision, contending that even smaller encroachments amounted to punishable offences under the IPC and Forest Act.
Read also:- Supreme Court Backs High Court, Grants Partition Rights to First Wife’s Children
The High Court carefully examined the scope of revisional powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the judge noted that a revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence. Its role is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or law.
Justice Kainthla further observed that the directions issued in Param Dev v. State of H.P. clearly restricted FIRs to cases of encroachment beyond ten bighas. Since the alleged encroachment here was less than that threshold, the FIR itself was not sustainable.
Read also:- Supreme Court on Delay in Pronouncing Judgments: Allahabad High Court Case
On the charge of criminal trespass, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Mathri v. State of Punjab and Rajinder v. State of Haryana, holding that trespass requires proof of intent to insult, intimidate or annoy. The complaint, however, contained no such allegation. Similarly, on the forest law violation, the court held that no notification declaring the area a reserved or protected forest was produced, making Section 33 of the Forest Act inapplicable.
The Judge remarked,
"The trial court had rightly concluded that no charges could be framed," while dismissing the State’s revision plea.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ghambo Devi
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 255 of 2015
