JUDGMENT 1. - Ravi Prakash Kaushik, the petitioner, had filed a complaint under section 75 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (the Act) against Smt. Prem Lata Renuka, respondent No. 2, in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jaipur alleging therein that he was the owner of Plot No. 148 admeasuring 217 Sq. Yds. situated in Ashok Vihar Extention, Gopalpura Road Jaipur whereupon he had constructed an 8' x 12' room with latrine and Bathroom besides raising a 4 feet high boundary wall around it, that the said construction was demolished by the Officers/servants of the Jaipur Development Authority (the 'Authority') on the complaint of Smt. Renuka on the ground that the said construction had been made in contravention of Section 31(1) of the Act without taking the permission from the Authority. It was further alleged that on coming to Jaipur in the month of September 1992 from Ahmedabad, where he was posted as Assistant General Manager for Rajasthan and Gujarat, Hindustan Machinery Tools Ltd., he came to know that Smt. Renuka was raising un-authorised construction over his said plot without obtaining the requisite permission from the Authority, that on 10.9.1992 he lodged a complaint in that behalf with the Authority but since no action was taken by the Authority in the matter despite repeated notices and reminders the petitioner was compelled to file the complaint. It was further alleged that though the learned Magistrate heard both the parties on such complaint yet he ordered for abatement thereof on the ground that during the pendency of petitioner's complaint, the Authority had already filed a complaint in his Court against Smt. Renuka and cognizance of the offences under sections 31(1) & 32 of the Act had also been taken in that case. By the present petition the petitioner has sought revival of his complaint before the learned Magistrate as, in his opinion, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 21.9.1993 is invalid in law and violates the very scheme and object behind the Act. 2. Mr. By the present petition the petitioner has sought revival of his complaint before the learned Magistrate as, in his opinion, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 21.9.1993 is invalid in law and violates the very scheme and object behind the Act. 2. Mr. G.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the proceedings instituted and commenced upon the complaint of the petitioner could have abated only when the cause of action for such proceedings had been removed by the Authority within a reasonable time after the giving of a notice of the proceedings to it by the Court of the learned Magistrate. It was submitted that mere filing of complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate against Smt. Renuka did not absolve the Authority of its duty and obligation under the Act. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition mainly on the ground that the impugned order was revisable under section 397 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. was misconceived and hence not maintainable. 4. The impugned order is an order of abatement whereby the proceedings initiated at the complaint of the petitioner were brought to an end. Abatement of legal proceedings means termination of actions without any decision thereon on account of cessation of causes of action. Where an action is terminated without a decision on the merits and without the assent of the prosecutor it would amount to abatement of the criminal proceedings. Such termination of the proceedings brings the action to an end and, therefore, the order terminating the proceedings has an element of finality in it. It is not an interlocutory order. For all practical purposes it is a final order. Such an order is, therefore, revisable under section 397 Cr.P.C. either by this Court or the Sessions Judge concerned. The present petition is, therefore, treated as a revision application under section 397 Cr.P.C. and in view of the importance and far reaching consequences of the decision on the point raised before this Court it is decided here, instead of transferring it to the Sessions Judge concerned for disposal. 5. The present petition is, therefore, treated as a revision application under section 397 Cr.P.C. and in view of the importance and far reaching consequences of the decision on the point raised before this Court it is decided here, instead of transferring it to the Sessions Judge concerned for disposal. 5. In view of the increasing necessity for forming Jaipur City and certain contiguous areas into Jaipur region and for the purpose of planning, coordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid development of such region the Act was brought on the Statute book and the 'Authority' was established under section 3 of the Act. The Authority was accordingly assigned the function of securing the integrated development of the Jaipur Region. Other authorities or persons were forbidden, except with the previous permission of the Authority to undertake any development within the Jaipur region of the type as the Authority may, from time to time, specify, by notification published in the official Gazette, and which is likely to affect the overall development of the Jaipur region. The Authority was, therefore, given the power to give directions to any local authority, or other authority or person, with regard to the implementation of any project or scheme financed by it as also the power to require the local authority to assume responsibilities for maintenance of the amenities provided by the Authority in the areas developed by it. The Authority was empowered to accord its permission to develop land falling within the purview of the Act as also the power to revoke or modify the permission granted by it for the said purpose. Acts of the unauthorised developments or use of land otherwise than in conformity with the plan made by the Authority were made punishable offences. It was given power to require removal of unauthorised developments, stop unauthorised developments. Power of requiring removal of even authorised development or use, if it is considered expedient in the interest of proper planning of any area so to do, was also conferred upon the Authority. 6. In order to enable it to execute and implement its plans the Authority was given power to raise necessary funds by way of borrowings, levy of fees or other charges, contributions from Central or State Government, any other authority or agency, rents, donations etc. The Authority was duly armed with the power to prosecute and punish the offenders under the Act. The Authority was duly armed with the power to prosecute and punish the offenders under the Act. Such a power is not only exercisable by it in respect of encroachment or obstruction upon public land but also in respect of private properties developed or sought to be developed in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule or regulation made thereunder. Offences under the Act were made non-cognizable, and compoundable with the permission of the Court. The Authority was also given the power to authorise police officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, to arrest any person committing in his view any offence relating to encroachment or un-authorise development on the lands vested in the Authority, or on public streets, if such person is unknown to him or gives wrong or unsatisfactory information regarding his name and address. It is thus evident that in order to enable the Authority to discharge the functions and duties, assigned to it under the Act for securing integrated development of the Jaipur Region effectively to the advantage and comforts of the public at large residing within such region, the Authority has been given ample powers by the Legislature. 7. At the same time the Legislature seems to have been quite conscious of the fact that the persons, engaged by the Authority in its employment to execute its plans and carry out the object of and purpose behind the Act, may fall victim of the temptation of exercising their powers arbitrate and discriminately or with culpable carelessness or negligence. Therefore, to make them accountable for the performance of their duties under the Act, specific provision for making their acts of commission or omission punishable as offences were also made. In this behalf sub-sec. Therefore, to make them accountable for the performance of their duties under the Act, specific provision for making their acts of commission or omission punishable as offences were also made. In this behalf sub-sec. (14) of Section 72, as substituted by Act No. 20 of 1991 w.e.f. 27.8.1991, may be referred to and reproduced for ready reference : "Section 72(14): Whoever, being an employee of the Authority, specifically entrusted with the duty to stop or prevent the encroachment or obstruction punishable under this section, wilfully or knowingly neglects or deliberately omits to stop or prevent such encroachment or obstruction, shall, on conviction, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both." By Section 82(2) it was provided that it shall be the duty of all police officers, (as have been authorised by the Authority) to arrest the offenders of the Act under section 82(1), to give immediate information to the Authority of the commission of the offence against the provisions of the Act or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder, and to assist all members, officers and servants of the Authority or any body thereof in the exercise of their lawful authority. A breach of this duty may also fall within the net of sub-sec. (14) of Section 72 of the Act. 8. The Legislature thus seems to have clearly mandated that in the process of integrated development of the Jaipur Region the Authority, its officers, employees and other persons who have been entrusted with the task of such development have not only been properly armed with necessary powers to carry out the aims and objects of the Act but have also been made accountable for their acts of omission and commission and liable to even penal action if they are noticed to have been knowingly and wilfully negligent or to have deliberately omitted to stop or prevent the encroachment or obstruction upon public land or to have otherwise contributed to the breach of the provisions of the Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder by their wilful or deliberate negligence or acts of omissions. Actions against them may not only be taken by Courts upon complaints made by the Authority itself but also on complaints from other persons on whose complaints cognizance of an offence against the Act has already been taken by the Courts. Such a right of a private person flows from the language of Section 75 of the Act. 9. Section 75, which is presently under our consideration, reads as under : "Cognizance of offences : (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rule or regulation or order made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing or the facts constituting such offence made by the Authority, or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the Authority; Provided that any person, whose right to enjoyment of his own property is adversely affected by any unauthorised development as indicated in sub-sec. (1) of Section 31, may also file a complaint in the like manner against such person or persons who may have undertaken the said unauthorised development; Provided further that the Authority shall also be given due notice of such proceedings and if the Authority removes the cause for action within a reasonable period, the proceedings in the Court shall abate, without prejudice to any other action or proceedings that the Authority has initiated or may initiate thereafter. (2) No Court inferior to that of a Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try any offence punishable under this Act." Though sub-sec. (1) of Section 75 mandates that cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act or any rule or regulation or order made thereunder may be taken by a Court only upon a complaint in writing made by the Authority or by a person expressly authorised in that behalf by the Authority yet the first proviso to the sub-section carves out an exception to the general rule contained in the main sub-section. The proviso expressly gives a right to a person, whose right of enjoyment of his own property is adversely affected by any unauthorised development as indicated in sub-sec. (1) of Section 31, to file a complaint in the like manner against such person or persons who may have undertaken the said unauthorised development. Clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 31 makes the development of or change in the use of any land without permission of the Authority an offence. (1) of Section 31, to file a complaint in the like manner against such person or persons who may have undertaken the said unauthorised development. Clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 31 makes the development of or change in the use of any land without permission of the Authority an offence. A person can, therefore, make a complaint against such a person or persons, who, whether at his own instance or at the instance of any other person or persons, commence, undertakes, or carries out development or institutes, or changes the use of any land. The phrase 'at the instance of any other person' used in the phraseology of this section may well include such employees of the Authority who by their wilful negligence or deliberate acts of omissions might have contributed to the commencement, undertaking or carrying out of the unauthorised development or change in the use of the land. 10. Once the right of a person, whose right to enjoyment of his own property is adversely affected by any unauthorised development as indicated in sub-sec. (1) of Section 31, to file a complaint against such person or persons who may have undertaken the said unauthorised development, is thus recognised and he files a complaint in a Court the second Proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 75 obliges the Court to give due notice of the proceedings brought before it to the Authority. The purpose behind enacting the second proviso is to enable the Authority, to whom notice of proceedings has been duly given by the Court, to remove the cause for action within a reasonable time. If the cause for action has been removed by the Authority within a reasonable time the proceedings instituted at the instance of the private complaint shall abate without prejudice to any other action or proceedings that the Authority has initiated or may initiate thereafter. 11. The word "remove" as qualified with the words "the cause for action" in the language of the second Proviso to Section 75 means to take off or away or to cause to disappear the very cause for action in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder. 11. The word "remove" as qualified with the words "the cause for action" in the language of the second Proviso to Section 75 means to take off or away or to cause to disappear the very cause for action in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder. The cause for action in the present case arose to the petitioner by the act of respondent No. 2 Smt. Prem Lata Renuka of her carrying out the construction on the plot in question in violation of the provisions of Section 31(1)(a) and of the officer of respondent No. 1 the J.D.A., by permitting such violation of the said provision despite timely intimation to them, and their failing to act in accordance with Section 33 or Section 34 of the Act. The cause for action, so arise to the complainant, would survive until action or actions contemplated under sections 31(1), 31(2), 32(1) & 6(a) and 6(b) of the Act have been taken by the Authority against the offenders who may include its own officers/employees/servants. It is particularly so in the context of the peculiar facts of this case wherein it has been specifically complained that similar act of the petitioner on this very plot was dealt with by the Authority by taking steps under those provisions. Those provisions besides making the unauthorised developments, changes etc. punishable offence obliges the Authority to take other steps also like those specified in Section 32(6)(b). There is no evidence on the record of the case to show that any step as contemplated by Section 32 was taken by the Authority against respondent No. 2 and permission under section 18/29 was ever granted to her. Since for the purposes of the Act the expression "removes the cause for action", as used in the language of Section 75, includes initiation of prosecution as well as other action or proceedings, which may be taken under the provisions of the Act, the cause for action would not stand removed unless steps under section 32(1) to 32(5) and, if need be, under section 32(6)(b) have also been taken by the Authority against the offender. It may be noted that the conjunction "and" occurring between Cls. (a) & (b) of Section 32 has not been used in the meaning or sense of the conjunction "or". It may be noted that the conjunction "and" occurring between Cls. (a) & (b) of Section 32 has not been used in the meaning or sense of the conjunction "or". Violation of the provisions contained in Section 31(1) and Section 32(4) and (5) would attract both the Cis. (a) & (b) of sub-sec. (6) of Section 32 so as to eliminate the exercise of the power of the Authority under those Clauses in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. 12. In the above view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that since the cause for action was not removed file abatement of petitioner's complaint against the respondent accused was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and regulations framed thereunder and hence invalid. 13. In the result the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, abating the complaint of the petitioner, is set aside and the said complaint is revived and restored to his file. He shall proceed to dispose of the same according to law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******