Rupa Ji vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14686 MP

                                                             1
                          IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                             ON THE 6 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39952 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         RUPA JI S/O UDA JI BAROD, AGE: 80 YEARS,
                         OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PATEL MARG,
                         WARD NO. 02, RAJGARH, TEHSIL SARDARPUR,
                         DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI DURGESH SHARMA - ADVOCATE.)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, STATION HOUSE
                         OFFICER, THROUGH POLICE STATION RAJGARH
                         DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                         (BY SMT. MRADULA SEN - ADVOCATE)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                              ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.167/2022 at Police Station Rajgarh, District Dhar for the offences punishable under Sections 339(A), 339(A)1, 339(A)1(A), 339(A)(1)(B), 339(A1961)(2), 339(A)(3), 339(B), 339(B)(1), 339(B)(1)(i), 339(B)(1)(ii), 339(B)(1)(iii), 339(B)(1)(iv), 339(B)(2), 339(B)(3), 339(C), 339(C)(1), 339(C)(2), 339(C)(3), 339(C)(4), 339(C)(5), 339(D), 339(D)

(i), 339(D)(ii), 339(D)(iii), 339(D)(iv), 339(D)(v) , 339(E), 339(E)(1), 339(E) (2), 339(E)(3), 339(E)(4), 339(F) of Municipalities Act, 1961 and Section 420, Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 9/9/2023 11:11:34 AM

34 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR has been registered on the basis of written complaint of Jitendra Yadav, Halka Patwari, on the basis of a written communication by the Sub Divisional Officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 313 of Municipalities Act, 1961 according to which the competent authority for lodging the report for offence punishable under Section 399 (C) of the Municipalities Act is the Chief Municipal Officer. He further contended that the FIR cannot be registered on the report of any other authority or person.

Section 313 of Municipalities Act is reproduced for better understanding of the matter :

Section 313, 1 . The Council, the Chief Municipal Officer or any other officer authorized by the Council in this behalf in the case of (Municipal Council) and the Council or any other officer authorized by the Council in this behalf in the case of (Nagar Parishad) other classes of Municipality may direct

-

(i) any prosecution for any offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder;

(ii) proceedings to be taken for the recovery of any penalties and for the punishment of any persons offending against the provisions of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made thereunder; and

(iii) that the expenses of such prosecutions or other proceedings be paid out of the Municipal fund:

Provided that no prosecution for an offence under this Act or under any Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 9/9/2023 11:11:34 AM

rule or bye-law made thereunder shall be instituted -

(i) within 12 months next after date of commission of such offence; or

(ii) if such date is not known or the offence is a continuing one, within twelve months next after the date on which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to the notice of the Council or of any officer or servant whose duty is to report such offence to the Council.

Any prosecution under this Act or under any rule of bye-law thereunder may, save as therein otherwise provided by, instituted before any Magistrate; and every fine or penalty imposed or under or by virtue of this Act or any rule or bye-law thereunder, and any compensation, expenses, charges or damages for the recovery of which no special provision is otherwise made in this Act may be recovered on application to any Magistrate by the distress or sale of any movable property within the limits of his jurisdiction belonging to the person from whom the money is claimed.

On perusal of provision of Section 313 of the Municipalities Act, 1961, it is clear that Halka Patwari is not empowered to lodge FIR or prosecution for the offence under Municipalities Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa

Konjalgi (1976) 3 SCC 866, in which certain conditions have been prescribed under which the process against the accused can be quashed or set aside. Condition No.4 of the aforesaid conditions, read as under :-

"(4) where the complaint suffer from fundamental legal defects, such as want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 9/9/2023 11:11:34 AM

In the present case the respondent/State was directed to ascertain as to whether there is any authorization in favour of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sardarpur, District Dhar in terms of Section 312/313 of the Municipalities Act, 1961. Pursuant to such direction learned counsel for the respondent/State has produced a letter dated 01.05.2023 of the Station Incharge, Police Station, Rajgarh in which it has been stated that an authorization was issued by the Collector on 29.03.2022 in favour of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Sardarpur, on the basis of which the FIR has been registered. It has not been stated anywhere that there was any authorization by the Municipality in terms of Section 312/313 of the Act, 1961, which is a condition precedent for launching of the prosecution. It is hence apparent that there was no authorization in favour of the Sub Divisional Officer in terms of 312/313 of the Act, 1961. The complaint filed by Halka Patwari is hence without any authority, therefore, the FIR dated 31.03.2022 registered on the report of the Halka Patwari for offences punishable under Sections 339(A), 339(A)1, 339(A)1(A), 339(A)(1)(B), 339(A1961)(2), 339(A)(3), 339(B), 339(B) (1), 339(B)(1)(i), 339(B)(1)(ii), 339(B)(1)(iii), 339(B)(1)(iv), 339(B)(2), 339(B) (3), 339(C), 339(C)(1), 339(C)(2), 339(C)(3), 339(C)(4), 339(C)(5), 339(D), 339(D)(i), 339(D)(ii), 339(D)(iii), 339(D)(iv), 339(D)(v) , 339(E), 339(E)(1), 339(E)(2), 339(E)(3), 339(E)(4), 339(F) of Municipalities Act, 1961 is not maintainable and the same is hereby quashed.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE rcp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 9/9/2023 11:11:34 AM