Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 85 (MP)

Brijbhushan Mangal v. The State of M. P.

2025-02-05

VIVEK RUSIA

body2025
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) being aggrieved by the order dated 4.10.2024, whereby the Ld. Court has dismissed the application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 preferred by the petitioner in a case related to F.IR. bearing Crime No. 89/2021. 2. Against this petitioner two FIRs were registered bearing Nos. 89/2021 and 90/2021 under section 339 (C) of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 as the petitioner developed the illegal colony on two different survey numbers. In both the criminal cases, he was granted anticipatory bail subject to the condition that he will develop the colony and complete all the formalities. After submitting all the certificates and photocopy of development the temporary bail was confirmed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed MCRC No. 22560/2022 seeking quashment of the F.I.R. and MCRC No. 22558/2022. The first MCRC was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file revision however, second the MCRC has been allowed vide order dated 16.8.2024 and the FIR No. 90/2021 has been quashed as well as subsequent proceedings. Order dated 16.8.2024 passed in MCRC No.22558/2022 is reproduced below:- "1] Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2] Counsel for the petitioner at the outset, has submitted that the defect(s) pointed by the Registry have already been cured.3] This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.1973, for quashing the First Information Report lodged at Crime No.90/2021 dated 26.2.2021, at police Station- Pachore, Rajgarh (M.P.), for offence under section 339 (3) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”) in respect of the alleged illegalities committed by the petitioner in connection with the affairs of the Municipality Pachore, District-Rajgarh (M.P.) as also the entire subsequent proceedings. 3] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in the present case, has been lodged by the Tehsildar at the instance of the Collector’s order dated 26.2.2021; whereas according to the provisions of section 313 of the Act of 1961, only the Chief Municipal Officer or the person authorized by the Council of the Municipality may initiate such action. Section 313 of the Act of 1961 provides for prosecution at the instance of the Council of the Municipality. Section 313 of the Act of 1961 provides for prosecution at the instance of the Council of the Municipality. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR itself has been initiated on account of the same being filed by an incompetent person, and thus, the FIR is liable to be quashed. 4] To support his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Alhpuriya v. State of Madhya Pradesh {M.Cr.C.No.1938/2014 decided on 5.12.2014} in which, this Court has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjaligi reported as (1996) 3 SCC 866 wherein, the apex Court has also held that where the complaint suffer from fundamental legal defects, including that of the competency of the authority lodging the FIR and thus, it is liable to be quashed. 5] Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. However, it is not denied that the FIR has been lodged by the Tehsildar at the instance of the Collector. 6] Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the case diary as also the charge sheet which is also filed by the petitioner on record, including the order passed by this Court in the case of Kuldeep Alhpuriya (supra), it is apparent that beore lodging the FIR the authorities who are involved, are the Patwari, who has given representation to the S.D.O. then the S.D.O. forwarded the same to the Collector and the Collector directed to the Tehsildar. Thus, apparently none of the authorities as prescribed under the provisions of section 313 of the Act of 1961 have initiated the prosecution against the petitioner. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition looking to the incompetency of the complainant to lodge the FIR. 7] Accordingly, the present Misc. Criminal Case stands allowed, and FIR lodged at Crime No.90/2021 dated 26.02.2021, at police Station- Pachore, Rajgarh (M.P.) for offence under section 339 (3) of the Act of 1961, as also the subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. 8] The Misc. Criminal Case stands allowed." 3. After the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Court alongwith an application for condonation of delay. 8] The Misc. Criminal Case stands allowed." 3. After the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Court alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The learned Sessions Court declined to condone the delay and accordingly this revision was not entertained on merit. Hence, this criminal revision before this Court. 4. It is not in dispute that the allegations in both the F.I.Rs are identical. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the F.I.R. on the ground that F.I.R at the instance of SDO could not have been registered by virtue of section 313 of Municipalities Act, 1961. The order dated 16.8.2024 has attained finality as no one has challenged this by way of SLP, therefore, in view of above instead of remanding this matter to the Revisional Court for deciding the application for condonation of delay on merit, on the ground of parity the F.I.R. No. 89/2021 is also quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision stands allowed.