Judgment 1. This is a petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. filed by accused petitioner seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under S. 112 read with Ss. 380/386 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also seeking quashment of the summoning order dated 7-6-2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. 2. The first point submitted before me by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that learned Magistrate had ordered summoning of the accused petitioner under S. 112 of the Act, even though S. 112 of the said Act stood omitted from the said Act by virtue of Haryana Ordinance No. 6 of 1999, which was promulgated by Governor of Haryana on 30-10-1999 and was published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated November 1, 1999 and later on, the Haryana Municipal Corporation (Second Amendment) Act, 1999 which received the assent of the Governor of Haryana on 31-12-1999 and published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated January 4, 2000, was issued to the same effect. 3. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, in my opinion, this argument of the learned counsel is misconceived. A perusal of the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P-3 would show that the action of the accused, which had resulted in filing the criminal complaint, had taken place on 16-9-1998. At that time, S. 112 of the Act was very much in existence. The criminal complaint in question was filed by the Municipal Corporation on 19-12-1998. Even at that time S. 112 of the said Act was very much in existence. If during the pendency of the criminal complaint, S. 112 of the Act had been omitted, on 30-10-1999, in my opinion, it could not be said that the learned Magistrate was not competent to order summoning of the accused petitioner for the offence under S. 112 of the Act, vide order dated 7-6-2000. This is especially so, when there is nothing on the record to show that S. 112 of the Act was omitted with retrospective effect. 4. It has then been submitted before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the one hand the Municipal Corporation is proceeding with the penalty proceedings against the petitioner and on the other hand the present criminal complaint has been filed against the accused. 4. It has then been submitted before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the one hand the Municipal Corporation is proceeding with the penalty proceedings against the petitioner and on the other hand the present criminal complaint has been filed against the accused. However, I find no merit in this submission as well. If the accused petitioner had contravened the provisions of S. 112 of the Act read with S. 380/386 of the Act, in my opinion, the Municipal Corporation was competent to file criminal complaint against the accused petitioner. If penalty has been imposed upon the accused petitioner, in violation of the provisions of the Act or rules framed thereunder and if the petitioner is aggrieved against the same, he would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. However, that by itself would be no ground to order quashment ofthe criminal complaint or order of summoning passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. No other point has been raised before me. 6. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.