Forest Authorities Not 'Police Officers' Under CrPC, Cannot Investigate IPC Offences: Telangana High Court
Preet Luthra
2 Feb 2026 10:51 AM IST
The High Court of Telangana has held that forest officials are empowered to investigate offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, but do not have authority to investigate offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao passed the order while partly allowing a writ petition filed seeking quashing of a Preliminary Offence Report (POR) registered by forest officials against the petitioners.
The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of Preliminary Offence Report dated 28 March 2022 registered by forest authorities of Nagarkurnool District, for alleged offences under Sections 27 and 56 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act) and Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution version recorded in the POR, forest personnel stationed at a check post within the Tiger Conservation Wildlife Protection Zone reported that, during late night hours, certain persons allegedly entered the area, demanded opening of the gate, and assaulted a camp protection watcher when access was refused. Following a preliminary enquiry and preparation of panchanama, proceedings were initiated against the petitioners.
It was contended by the petitioners that they had not committed any offence and that even according to the allegations, ingredients of the offences were not made out. They further argued that forest officials lacked authority to investigate offences under the IPC, and therefore continuation of proceedings in respect of IPC offences was illegal.
The principal issue before the Court was whether forest officials were competent to investigate and initiate proceedings in respect of offences under the IPC along with offences under the WLP Act, and whether the POR required interference at the preliminary stage.
The Court first noted that the allegations in the complaint and panchanama indicated that the incident occurred within a Tiger Reserve area and involved alleged entry into a locked base camp and assault on forest personnel. The Court observed that questions regarding whether the petitioners had entered lawfully or illegally, and whether any assault occurred, were disputed questions of fact requiring investigation and could not be examined in writ jurisdiction at this stage.
However, the Court proceeded to examine the legal question concerning the competence of forest officials to investigate IPC offences. Referring to precedents of the Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka High Courts, the Court noted that forest officials are not police officers within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cannot investigate cognizable offences under the IPC unless specifically empowered by statute or authorised by a Magistrate.
The Court also relied upon decisions holding that the Wild Life (Protection) Act contains its own procedure and empowers forest authorities only to investigate offences under that statute, while investigation of IPC offences must be carried out by police authorities. It was further observed that when offences under the WLP Act are accompanied by IPC offences, investigation into IPC offences cannot be undertaken by forest officials.
The Court observed that even if allegations under IPC were accepted at face value, continuation of proceedings by an authority lacking jurisdiction would amount to abuse of process of law, attracting principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch.Bhajan Lal.
“In the above said precedents, 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," the Court remarked.
The High Court held that forest officials were competent to investigate offences under Sections 27 and 56 of the WLP Act but lacked authority to investigate offences punishable under the IPC.
Accordingly, the Court quashed proceedings in POR No.4 of 2022 to the extent they related to offences under Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 IPC, while declining to interfere with proceedings concerning offences under the WLP Act. The Court clarified that forest officials were free to pursue remedies in accordance with law with respect to IPC offences through competent authorities, if so advised.
The writ petition was thus partly allowed, with IPC offences being quashed while investigation into alleged violations under the Wild Life (Protection) Act was permitted to proceed.
Case: Mr. Kolichelimi Sai Rohit and five others v The State of Telangana
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.29910 OF 2022