1. This petition is filed by the 1st accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.389/2006 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam relating to offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 506(part-II./34

I.P.C.

2. The 2nd respondent filed private complaint in the lower Court against A-1 to A-6 for certain offences. A-1 is described as “the Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner N.Srikanth, --- Visakhapatnam”. A-2 to A-4 are K.Ananda Babu (City planner., Assistant City planner G.Babu, Building Inspector Ch.Raghunatha Rao. A-5 and A-6 are private parties, A-5 being a house wife and A-6 is stated to be Professor in Economics, Andhra University, both of them being residents of Siripuram towers, which is subject matter in dispute. The 2nd respondent/complainant is a contractor in construction field. He is partner in Siripuram towers located in Siripuram Junction of Visakhapatnam and its builder. When the Municipal Corporation issued notice to State Bank of Hyderabad located in part of the disputed premises for vacating the premises and for demolition of that portion and when A-6 also issued another notice and when the Municipal Corporation threatened the complainant with demolition of constructions, the complainant is stated to have filed O.S.1165/2003 in Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam and filed I.A. No.449/2003 therein for restraining the Municipal Corporation, VUDA and 22 flat owners in Siripuram towers from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. It is claimed that the Civil Court granted interim injunction on 22.04.2003 against the Municipal Corporation in I.A. No.449/2003. It is alleged that in spite of service of notice to Corporation authorities by the Civil Court, the authorities high handedly behaved and went to Siripuram towers on 07.02.2005 and forcibly demolished structures of the complainant in unruly manner and that the city planner and other accused persons were present at the time of demolition work with the assistance of A-5 and A-6. It is further alleged that when injunction orders are shown to the Municipal Corporation authorities, they have thrown the complainant on ground and that A-2 and A-6 confined and obstructed the complainant from moving from that place and that A-2 to A-4 confined the complainant and restricted movements on that day and that A-2 to A-6 threatened the complainant with dire consequences of doing away his life and that when the complainant tried to videograph the demolition work, A-1 to A-6 snatched camera and video and handed over the same in the police station.

3. On a perusal of the entire complaint, there is no specific allegation made by the complainant against the Commissioner by name N.Srikanth. Complaint of the complainant is against the Municipal Corporation and A-2 to A-6. Since the Municipal Corporation is an inanimate body, the complainant had shown the corporation as A-1 represented by its commissioner. When it is questioned as to how a criminal complaint is maintainable against the Municipal Corporation, which is an inanimate body, the 2nd respondent’s counsel contended that the Municipal Corporation is a body corporate and has got legal entity. But, the 2nd respondent’s counsel could not point out any provision in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act describing the Municipal Corporation as a juristic person like a company under the Indian Companies Act. This is not a civil matter where the Municipal Corporation may sue or may be sued when it is represented by the Commissioner; and when an order is passed by the Civil Court, it would be binding on not only the Commissioner but also on his subordinates working in the same Municipal Corporation. In this complaint, the complainant did not allege and the lower Court did not take cognizance of any offence under any special enactment having special provision to prosecute a body corporate, against A-1-Muncipal C