Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 123 (BOM)

HARISH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2016-01-19

V.L.ACHLIYA

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.L. Achliya, J. 1. By the present application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant (Original accused No. 13) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 99 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under section 447, 448, 454, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, seeks the following reliefs:- "(a) to quash the Criminal Complaint Case No. 99 of 2010 (Goverdhan vs. Deepak and Others) dated 5th October, 2010 (Doct. No. 5) filed by the respondent No. 2 against the applicant before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli. (b) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20th November, 2010 (Doct. No. 9) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 99 of 2010 (Goverdhan vs. Deepak and others)." 2. Brief facts as averred by the applicant leading to filing of the present application are as follows:- The applicant had purchased land bearing Survey No. 2 at Mauje Devapur, Talathi Saza No. 15, Murkhala, Gadchroli, Taluka and District Gadchiroli, vide registered Sale Deed dated 13th June, 1985 from one Laxman Karu Shende. The applicant got the layout plan sanctioned and land diverted after sub division. The measurements and demarcations have been carried out repeatedly. In 2000-01, the applicant handed over the layout roads of duly developed Survey Nos. 2/1 and 2/2, which are adjacent to Survey No. 3/4, claimed to be owned by respondent No. 2, to Municipal Council, Gadchiroli. Accordingly, 0.15.78 HR land of Survey No. 2/1 and 0.11.78 HR land of Survey No. 2/2 of the said layouts has been mutated in the name of Municipal Council, Gadchiroli, for maintenance and repairs. The applicant found that the respondent No. 2 has closed the layout road, which was handed over to Municipal Council, Gadchroli, by making an encroachment thereon and so also the respondent No. 2 did not make a construction as per the sanctioned Layout plan. This caused prejudice and irreparable loss to the applicant, who owns and possesses layout plots in Survey Nos. 2/1 and 2/2. The applicant brought the said fact of encroachment on Municipal road to the notice of authorities concerned including the Municipal Council, Gadchiroli. In December, 2006, in the "Lokshahi Day" organized at the Collectorate, Gadchroli, the applicant complained of encroachment made by respondent No. 2. 2/1 and 2/2. The applicant brought the said fact of encroachment on Municipal road to the notice of authorities concerned including the Municipal Council, Gadchiroli. In December, 2006, in the "Lokshahi Day" organized at the Collectorate, Gadchroli, the applicant complained of encroachment made by respondent No. 2. Thereafter, on 4th January, 2006, the applicant again made a complaint in respect of the said encroachment to the Collector, Gadchiroli, also. In the "Lokshahi Day" organized on December, 2008 also, the applicant made a similar complaint. Since 4th January, 2006, the applicant pursued the matter with all the authorities concerned by bringing to their notice the illegal act of encroachment committed by the respondent No. 2 and to remove the same. By letter dated 7th May, 2010, the Collector, Gadchiroli, directed the Chief Officer of Gadchiroli Municipal Council to act on the complaints made by the applicant and to remove the encroachment of respondent No. 2 herein. In the said letter, the Collector observed about the lack of attention by the officials of the Municipal Council to the issue of encroachment. Accordingly on 28th May, 2010 the Municipal Council cleared some portion of encroachment of respondent No. 2, and asked the respondent No. 2 to remove the remaining encroachment of his own accord within seven days from 28th May, 2010. On 15th July, 2010, the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Nagpur, sent a letter to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council calling his explanation as to why the (a) remaining encroachment was not removed by the Municipal Council and; (b) respondent No. 2 was asked to clear the encroachment of his own accord. Respondent No. 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2010 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadchiroli, for permanent injunction restraining the officials of Municipal Council from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and ownership of respondent No. 2 over the disputed property and a decree for damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Along with the suit, the respondent No. 2 also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure for temporary injunction. However, the learned trial Court rejected the same by its order dated 3rd December, 2010 and recorded finding that respondent No. 2 has encroached upon the adjacent road to the plot and raised construction in violation of rules. However, the learned trial Court rejected the same by its order dated 3rd December, 2010 and recorded finding that respondent No. 2 has encroached upon the adjacent road to the plot and raised construction in violation of rules. The learned Judge has further observed that the action of removal of encroachment by the officials of Municipal Council, Gadchiroli, is legal and a proper procedure was followed by them. During pendency of the Civil Suit, with a mala fide intention to cover up his illegal act of encroachment and to build pressure on the personnel of Municipal Council and in order to save his unauthorized and illegal construction, the respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 99 of 2010 against the officials of the Municipal Council as well the present applicant for prosecution for offences punishable under sections 447, 448, 454, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. On 20th November, 2010, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, ordered issue of process against the applicant and other twelve accused in the said criminal complaint case filed by respondent No. 2 for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 447, 448, 454,147, 148, 149 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Although the respondent No. 2 has already filed a civil suit in respect of same subject-matter, still, he filed a Criminal Complaint Case. Respondent No. 2 did not disclose the fact of filing of a civil suit in his complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Magistrate, the applicant has filed the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said proceedings. 3. The applicant has prayed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings on the following grounds:- (a) Even if the allegations contained in the complaint are given a face value and are taken to be correct in their entirety, they do not disclose any offence. (b) The act of the complainant in filing the complaint is mala-fide, as it is in retaliation for the action of removal of encroachment taken by the Accused Nos. 1 to 12 i.e. the personnel of Municipal Council. (b) The act of the complainant in filing the complaint is mala-fide, as it is in retaliation for the action of removal of encroachment taken by the Accused Nos. 1 to 12 i.e. the personnel of Municipal Council. (c) The allegations made in the complaint disclose existence of a civil dispute for which the respondent No. 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2010 against the officials of Municipal Council and the applicant. (c-1) The learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the entire complaint contains allegations against Accused Nos. 1 to 12 only and it does not attribute any specific role against the applicant in the alleged commission of offence, which fact does not even prima facie make out any case against the applicant to enable the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence and issue process against the applicant. (d) The complaint on the face of it, is frivolous, vexatious and oppressive and it suffers from malice. The same is filed with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the applicant and with a view to spite the applicant due to private and personal grudge, warranting quashing of it. (e) The allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (f) Perusal of the complaint and the corresponding facts demonstrates that the complaint has been lodged with a view to save illegal construction and encroachment over the municipal road made by respondent No. 2. (g) No ingredients of offences alleged against the applicant are even prima facie made out from bare reading of the complaint warranting quashing thereof at the threshold. (h) The learned Magistrate committed a grievous error of law by ordering issue of process without even prima facie getting satisfied as to whether the ingredients of offences alleged against the applicant are made out so as to set the criminal law into motion. (i) The learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated that summoning an accused in a criminal matter is a very serious action and it ought not have been taken when the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence by the applicant. (i) The learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated that summoning an accused in a criminal matter is a very serious action and it ought not have been taken when the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence by the applicant. (j) The learned Magistrate ought not to have issued the process before complying with the provisions of section 202(1) of Criminal Procedure Code which mandates the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process against the applicant, since he is residing at Nagpur which is beyond the area wherein learned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. (k) The order of issue of process is erroneous and illegal, as the learned Magistrate has not deferred issuance of process against the applicant, and ought to have either inquired into the case himself, or directed an investigation to be made by a Police Officer for the purpose of reaching a conclusion whether or not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant in the light of provisions of section 202(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Heard Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. M.A. Kadu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Vijaya P. Thakare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 5. Mr. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the applicant strenuously contended that even if the allegations contained in the complaint are given face value and same are taken to be correct in their entirety, still the complaint do not disclose any offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 447, 448 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint has been filed with mala fide intention as an act of retaliation to the action of removal of encroachment taken by accused Nos. 1 to 12 i.e. the officials of the Municipal Council. The fact of filing of civil suit was suppressed in the complaint filed before the Magistrate. Inviting attention to the allegations made in the complaint, the learned counsel has submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are entirely directed against accused Nos. 1 to 12 and attribute no specific role against the applicant in the alleged commission of the offence. On the face of the complaint, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant to issue process against the applicant. 1 to 12 and attribute no specific role against the applicant in the alleged commission of the offence. On the face of the complaint, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant to issue process against the applicant. He has further submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed gross error of law in passing the order of issuance of process without even prima facie getting satisfied as to whether the ingredients of offence alleged against the applicants are made out so as to set the criminal law into motion. He has further submitted that filing of the complaint before the competent authority to take action against the respondent No. 2, in accordance with law cannot be a cause to file criminal complaint. He has submitted that filing of such private complaint to prosecute the officials of the Municipal Council and the applicant by respondent No. 2 is nothing but an act of gross abuse of process of Court and in order to meet the ends of justice, the complaint filed as against the applicant deserves to be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to save the applicant from humiliation, harassment and to undergo rigours of criminal prosecution. In support of the submission that this is a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 599 : (1998) 5 SCC 749 and State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajanlal and Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 supported the order passed by the Magistrate. The learned counsel has strenuously contended that the action on the part of the officials of the Municipal Council in demolishing the structure of the respondent No. 2 was per se illegal as demolition has been carried out without following the due process of law. The respondent No. 2 was neither given any notice nor afforded opportunity of hearing to put up his stand before the authority to counter the allegations that he has made encroachment. The respondent No. 2 was neither given any notice nor afforded opportunity of hearing to put up his stand before the authority to counter the allegations that he has made encroachment. The officials of the Municipal Council not only demolished the boundary wall but they have also destroyed the granite tiles kept inside the compound wall with the help of JCB Machine and caused the loss to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is contended that the accused No. 13 was instrumental in initiating the said process of demolition. The officials of the Municipal Council have acted at the behest and in collusion with the applicant/respondent No. 13 in carrying out demolition of compound wall. By referring the contents of the complaint, the learned counsel strenuously contended that the allegation made in the complaint sufficiently discloses the commission of offence and learned Magistrate was fully justified in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel has further contended that while passing the order of issuance of process under section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate is not required to record the elaborate reasons. In support of this contention, learned counsel has referred and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhushan Kumar and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2012 Cri.L.J. 2286. 7. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced, I have carefully examined the impugned order in the light of the complaint filed by the complainant. If we read the allegations made in the complaint, then the fact is not in dispute that except the applicant (accused No. 13), all other accused in the case are the officials of the Municipal Council, Gadchiroli. The fact is also not in dispute that the portion of the compound wall was demolished by the Municipal Council. The accused No. 1 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Gadchiroli. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the serving engineers of the Municipal Council, Gadchiroli. Accused Nos. 4 to 12 are claimed to be the employees of the Municipal Council. The allegations are mainly directed against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. Accused Nos. 4 to 13 are alleged to have cooperated with the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in carrying out demolition by accused Nos. 1 to 3. Accused Nos. 4 to 12 are claimed to be the employees of the Municipal Council. The allegations are mainly directed against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. Accused Nos. 4 to 13 are alleged to have cooperated with the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in carrying out demolition by accused Nos. 1 to 3. If we consider the allegations made in the complaint, in its totality then the only act attributed to accused No. 13 is that he has actively assisted the officers of the Municipal Council in carrying out the demolition. Thus there are no specific allegations attributed by the complainant in the entire complaint. The complaint in respect of the alleged act of demolition carried out on 29-5-2010, has been filed before the Magistrate on 5-10-2010. Except bare allegations made in complaint, no material placed before the Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process. Two witnesses examined in support of the complaint has stated nothing against the applicant/accused No. 13. Thus except the bare allegations made in the complaint, there was no evidence available before the Magistrate to issue process against applicant/ accused No. 13. The order passed by the Magistrate reads as under:- "Read the contents of complaint and verification of complainant alongwith statements of witnesses, which sufficiently disclose commission of offence by accused persons. Therefore, issue process against them under sections 147, 149, 427, 447, 448 and 454 of I.P.C. on payment of P.F. Within 3 days." 8. On examining the impugned order in the light of the allegations contained in the complaint and two witnesses examined in support of the complaint, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the complaint discloses no specific role played in commission of offence by the applicant/accused No. 13. The only allegation made against the applicant/accused No. 13 is that he has assisted the accused No. 1 to 3 in carrying out the demolition. Neither the complainant nor the witnesses examined disclose presence of the applicant/accused No. 13 on the spot when the demolition was carried out. Witness Nos. 2 and 3 examined in support of the complaint has not stated anything against the applicant/accused No. 13. Neither the complainant nor the witnesses examined disclose presence of the applicant/accused No. 13 on the spot when the demolition was carried out. Witness Nos. 2 and 3 examined in support of the complaint has not stated anything against the applicant/accused No. 13. Thus even if the allegations contained in the complaint are given face value and are taken to be correct in their entirety, in my view, they do not disclose any offence for which the process could have been issued against the applicant/accused No. 13. The order passed by the Magistrate depicts clear non application of mind and casual approach in passing the order. In this context, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused No. 13 has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case the of Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and ors. (supra). While dealing with the complaint and issue of process, the Magistrate is expected to be very vigilant in passing such order. It is expected that the Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the complaint and any other evidence brought on record and to take such other steps to find out truthfulness of the allegations and then to arrive at decision as to whether prima facie if any offence is committed by all or any of the accused. He has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary placed in support thereof and to arrive at the conclusion that the allegations together with the evidence placed on record is sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. In the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd, in para 28, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complaint and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhushan Kumar and Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (supra) in support of the submission that the Magistrate is not required to record elaborate reasons in support of the order of issue summons against the accused. It is contended that while issuing process the Magistrate has to make limited inquiry as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and he is not supposed to examine as to whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction. The ruling relied provides no assistance to support the impugned order passed by the Magistrate. In the case cited, the Apex Court has observed that section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists sufficient ground for summons to be issued and the satisfaction of the Magistrate must be reflected on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint and oral and documentary evidence placed in support of the complaint. The order to summon the accused cannot be passed in casual manner. The order to summon the accused cannot be passed in casual manner. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the allegations contained in the complaint together with two witnesses examined in support of the complaint, prima facie do not disclose the commission of offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 447, 448 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant/ accused No. 13. The only allegation made in the complaint against the applicant is that he had assisted the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in carrying out the demolition of the compound wall which according to the respondent/ complainant was an illegal act. 10. The demolition in question has been carried out by the officials of the Municipal Council in exercise of their powers conferred upon them under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 as they found the construction was erected illegally. Only for the reason that the applicant/accused No. 13 has made several complaints of illegal construction against respondent No. 2 alleging therein blocking a road in the lay out, to the Officials of the Municipal Council and their superior authorities, it cannot be said that he has acted in collusion and assisted the officials of the Municipal Council in carrying out the demolition. Criminal law cannot be set into motion merely asking of someone or as a matter of course. Besides careful reading of the complaint and material placed before it, the Magistrate is expected to exert more and to know whether the allegations made in the complaint together with the material relied make out any strong case for issuance of process. The Magistrate is also expected to take care that the process of Court may not be abused by filing frivolous criminal complaint. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable. Having tested the order passed in the light of the law settled by the Apex Court, I am of the view that the order impugned is not sustainable and the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed to the extent of applicant/accused No. 13. 11. Having tested the order passed in the light of the law settled by the Apex Court, I am of the view that the order impugned is not sustainable and the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed to the extent of applicant/accused No. 13. 11. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court laid down some guidelines wherein the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised. In paragraph 102 of the said judgment the Apex Court has observed thus:- "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." (Emphsis supplied) 12. In the case of Pepsi Foods vs. Special Judicial Magistrate (supra) by referring to the decision in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: "It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal this Court examined the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down certain guidelines where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guidelines is where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Under Article 227 the power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law by the inferior Courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. The power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised while invoking these powers. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or section 482 of the Code it may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226. Some of the decisions of this Court laying down principles for the exercise of powers by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 may be referred to." 13. Thus as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case against the applicant/accused No. 13. So also the complainant together with the statement of two witnesses recorded in support of the complaint do not disclose any commission of the offence and make out a case against the applicant/accused No. 13. Apart from this, the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Thus the case in hand is a fit case wherein inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure needs to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court as well as to secure the ends of justice. 14. Thus the case in hand is a fit case wherein inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure needs to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court as well as to secure the ends of justice. 14. The learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that filing of the present case is not only gross abuse of Court but also an act of malicious institution of criminal proceeding by respondent No. 2 with ulterior motive in wrecking the vengeance due to the complaint lodged by the applicant/accused No. 13 against the respondent No. 2 for taking action against him in law for illegal act of encroachment and blocking the road. It is pointed out that before filing of the criminal complaint, respondent No. 2/complainant has filed civil suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2010 seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the alleged act of demolition of the portion of structure by the officials of the Municipal Council. The complaint has been filed with the foundation that the demolition has been carried without following due process of law i.e. without opportunity of hearing being afforded to the respondent No. 2/complainant by officials of municipal council. In the suit filed by respondent No. 2/complainant, he has also filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein from carrying out further demolition. The Municipal council and their officers appeared in the matter and filed their reply. They have categorically denied the case of the respondent No. 2/complainant that the demolition was carried out without following due process of law. On the contrary, they have taken a specific plea that despite of issuing notices on 12-1-2006 and 16-4-2010, respondent No. 2/complainant failed to act upon those notices and therefore, they have invoked their powers under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 and demolished the compound wall of respondent No. 2/complainant which was done in accordance with the law. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli while deciding the application for temporary injunction has considered the rival contentions and observed that the action on the part of the Municipal Council and their officers was within the four corners of Law. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli while deciding the application for temporary injunction has considered the rival contentions and observed that the action on the part of the Municipal Council and their officers was within the four corners of Law. In para 12 and 13 of order dated 3-12-2010, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli has observed as under:- "12. If anybody violates the legal provisions for construction of building then the concerned authorities have every power to remove such construction by following due procedure of law. In the present case, admittedly on 10-1-2006 and 16-4-2010 it was pointed out by authorities of the Municipal Council to plaintiffs that they have encroached over the road adjacent to the plot and made construction by violating the provisions of law, so it is very much clear that before removing the construction Authorities of Municipal Council Gadchiroli have followed due procedure and given opportunity to plaintiffs for removal of construction by themselves. At this juncture too if any construction of plaintiffs is found to be illegal then authorities of Municipal Council have every powers to remove such construction by following due procedure of law, and such powers cannot be confined by restraining defendant from removal of construction. 13. As the plaintiffs failed to made out length, width and four boundaries of their plot, as plaintiffs failed to made out they had constructed only to the extent of 88.80 square meters on the ground floor and 71.97 squares meters on first floor, i.e. according to the construction permission, as failed to obtain the building construction completion certificate required u/s. 193 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panachayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, as plaintiffs failed to made out, defendants are violating provisions of law and abusing their powers, therefore, I do not found prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs." 15. It appears that the Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2010 was filed on 3-6-2010 i.e. prior to filing of the Criminal Complaint before the learned Magistrate. The fact in respect of the filing of the civil suit has not been disclosed in the complaint filed. It is apparent from the face of record that the applicant/accused No. 13 was pursuing his grievance against respondent No. 2/complainant since the year 2006. The fact in respect of the filing of the civil suit has not been disclosed in the complaint filed. It is apparent from the face of record that the applicant/accused No. 13 was pursuing his grievance against respondent No. 2/complainant since the year 2006. Taking cognizance of his complaint, the Collector, Gadchiroli issued directions to the Municipal Authorities to take appropriate action in the matter. It is also apparent from the face of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli that the officers of the Municipal Council had issued two notices to respondent No. 2/complainant before taking the action of demolition. As observed in the order, the action on the part of the Municipal Authorities was prima found to be within the four corners of Law. Therefore, in the light of the facts of the case, filing of such criminal proceedings against the applicant/accused No. 13 who made complaint against respondent No. 2/complainant in respect of unauthorized construction and encroachment on the road which leads to the action of demolition, can certainly be said to be malicious institution of proceedings with ulterior motives for wrecking vengeance against the applicant/accused No. 13 due to personal grudge, the respondent No. 2/complainant carrying against him. In view of this also, the powers under section 482 deserves to be exercised in the matter to quash the criminal proceedings against the applicant/accused No. 13. 16. Thus having taken into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that the Criminal Complaint filed against the applicant/accused No. 13 and the impugned order of issuance of process passed against him, is gross abuse of process of Court at the instance of respondent No. 2/complainant. Only for the reason that the applicant/accused No. 13 had made a complaint and the Municipal Authorities have acted upon that complaint, the person like applicant/accused No. 13 cannot be prosecuted. Continuation of such criminal proceedings would result into harassment and humiliation to applicant/accused No. 13. It is therefore, necessary to invoke the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent further abuse of process of Court as well as to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) to the extent of applicant/accused No. 13. It is therefore, necessary to invoke the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent further abuse of process of Court as well as to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) to the extent of applicant/accused No. 13. It is clarified that the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs shall be confined to the case of applicant/accused No. 13 and it shall not have bearing upon the case to be proceeded against the other accused. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.