In a significant ruling that balances legal procedure with environmental responsibility, the Calcutta High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a man accused of cutting trees in a Kolkata housing society. Instead of allowing the criminal proceedings to continue, the court directed the man to plant at least four saplings to compensate for the alleged damage.
Court's Directive for Environmental Compensation
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), presiding over the case, emphasized the importance of ecological balance while delivering the order on December 26, 2025. The judge explicitly stated that "planting more trees can help offset the damage and promote sustainability." Consequently, the court quashed the ongoing legal proceedings against the petitioner with the specific condition that he must plant a minimum of four trees.
The judge further elaborated on the court's consciousness regarding environmental conservation, suggesting that complaints about tree cutting should ideally lead to restorative efforts that help maintain the ecological balance, rather than solely punitive legal action.
Background of the Thakurpukur Housing Society Case
The dispute originated from a complaint filed by the secretary of a housing society located in Thakurpukur, Kolkata. The complaint alleged that four small trees—comprising two guava trees, one small jhau tree, and one mango tree—were found with their heads (branches) cut-off. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered against the accused individual.
In his defense, the accused argued that the case was initiated without any direct evidence linking him to the act. His legal counsel raised two critical points. First, they cited the West Bengal Trees Act, 2006, which mandates that no prosecution for offences under this Act can be instituted without the prior sanction of the State Government or an authorized officer. No such sanction was obtained before lodging the complaint.
Second, the defense argued that the Act's definition of "felling of a tree" does not encompass the mere cutting of branches, which was the alleged action in this instance. The state's counsel, opposing the plea to quash the FIR, contended that cutting the heads of the trees squarely fell under the purview of the Act.
Legal Grounds for Quashing the Proceedings
The court's decision to quash the FIR was primarily based on procedural lapses. The state counsel admitted that nothing in the Case Diary indicated that the mandatory sanction required under the West Bengal Trees Act was obtained.
Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged offence was a non-cognisable offence. In such cases, Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) stipulates that no investigation can proceed without an order from a magistrate. This mandatory provision was not followed in this case.
The court observed, "Though certain materials were found against the petitioner but on account of non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 174(2) of BNSS... this court is of the view that the proceeding is liable to be quashed and if it is allowed to be continued it would be the abuse of the process of law." While acknowledging some evidence against the accused, the court held that the procedural irregularities were severe enough to invalidate the proceedings.
This ruling underscores a growing judicial trend of seeking environmental restitution alongside, or sometimes in place of, traditional legal penalties in cases involving ecological harm, setting a precedent for similar disputes in the future.
