JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings pending against him under Sections 32 (1), 33 (2) and 33 (7) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (herein-after to be referred to as "the Act") in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (J.D.A.) No. 2, Jaipur. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint filed against the petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (JDA) No. 2, Jaipur was not filed by the competent Authority and Section 75 of the Act bars cognizance on the complaint which has not been filed by the competent authority. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 122 and in A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 2160 . 3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the Jaipur Development Authority has submitted that there is no infirmity in the complaint filed by the present petitioner. 4. It appears from the record that the present petitioner has submitted 3 applications before the learned trial Court, upon which the order dated 30.10.1999 impugned in this petition has been passed. In all the three applications, nothing has been said about the competence of the authority who filed the complaint. The revision petition preferred against the order of the learned Magistrate has also been dismissed by the Revisional Court, observing that the question as to whether the Enforcement Officer of Jaipur Development Authority is competent to file the complaint, will be seen at the evidence stage. These contentions were never raised before the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the JDA has submitted that there is no infirmity in the complaint filed in the JDA Court. These contentions were never raised before the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the JDA has submitted that there is no infirmity in the complaint filed in the JDA Court. He has relied upon the order dated 25.8.1999 passed by the Secretary, JDA, which was also not disputed by the present petitioner, is reproduced below: t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] ( 1982 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e 25 ) dh /kkjk 75 dh mi/kkjk ( 1 ) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k U;k;ky; esa mDr vf/kfu;e o mlds v/khu cuk;s x;s fu;e] fofu;e ;k vkjksi ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k ds rF;ksa dk fyf[kr ifjokn lfpo] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] funsZ'kd izorZu@mi funsZ'kd izoZru ls iwoZ vuqefr izkIr dj izLrqr djus ds fy, ,rn~ }kjk t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds lacaf/kr izorZu vf/kdkjh dks Hkh izkf/kd`r djrh gSA t;iqj fodkl vk;qDr rFkk eq[; vifBr vf/kdkjh o lfpo dks t;iqj fodkl vk;qDr dh lk/kkj.k rFkk fof'k"V bZtktr ls mDr laca/k esa igys dh izkf/kdj.k ds vkns'k dzekad tsMh,@,DV ( 6 ) 82@2760 fnukad flrEcj 1982 }kjk ,oa vfrfjDr lfpo] lgk;d lfpo vfHk;kstd ,oa mi funs'kd izorZu dks vkns'k dzekad tfui vifBr ( 6 ) t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds fy, ,oa mldh vkSj ls mes'k dqekj lfpo t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj 6. The order quoted above clearly goes to show that the Deputy Director, JDA is competent to accord sanction and on sanction having been accorded, the Enforcement Officer is authorised to present the complaint. At the same time, learned counsel for the JDA has placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, dated 10.9.2008 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1295/2008, titled JDA v. Om Prakash , wherein it was categorically held that "in view of the aforesaid order the complainant i.e. Dy. Director (Enforcement), Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur at the relevant point of time was legally empowered for filing the complaint before the concerned Court." 7. Looking at the above order dated 25.8.1990 and the observations of the Coordinate Bench, it is crystal clear that the Deputy Director was legally empowered to accord sanction and the complaint has been filed by the Officer authorized. 8. In view of above, the petition is misconceived and it deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.The stay application a Also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******