IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that proceedings can be quashed if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness in municipal law.

ORDER :

(V. Sujatha, J.) :

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in STC 194/2015 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram.

2. The 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Municipality on 02.01.2014 lodged a complaint under Section 366 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ichapuram alleging commitment of offences by the petitioner/accused under Section 340 and 340A r/w Sec 209, 211, 217 and 228 of the A.P Municipalities Act 1965 (as amended). The said complaint was taken cognizance by the said Court on 08.06.2015 under STC No.194/2015.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.3.2013 the 2nd respondent issued a provisional notice under Sec 228(1) of A.P Municipalities Act in proceedings in U.C. No.092/13 dated 25.3.2013 to the petitioner/accused informing him that he had constructed a building comprising of ground, 1st and 2nd Floor in Ward No.4, main road NHS street, Ichapuram Municipality, without obtaining any building permission under Section 209, 211/ 220 and 221 of the A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 (as amended) and it is further informed to him that he should stop all the work on receipt of this notice and after obtaining permission from the municipality he should commence further work. It was further informed to him through this notice that his construction is against the provisions under clause 3 of Sec 228(1) and (2) of the A.P Municipalities Act 1965 (as amended) and he shall remove the above said part of construction constructed contrary to the above said provision immediately after receipt of this notice failing which, action will be taken as per law against him. The notice also informed him that he should give written explanation within 03 days of the receipt of the said notice. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued confirmation notice in U.C No. 9/2013 dated 22.11.2013 wherein it was informed to the petitioner/accused that as he had not given any explanation to the provisional notice dated 25.3.2013 and he has failed to remove the constructions illegally constructed by him, the said provisional notice U/Sec.228(3) is confirmed. It is further informed to him that the part of building constructed without permission should be removed within 07 days of receipt of this notice failing which action of filing a criminal case under Sec.340 (Act 6 of 2008) shall be taken against him and the premises shall be sealed. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram under Section 340 and 340A r/w Sec 209, 211, 217 and 228 of the A.P Municipalities Act 1965 (as amended).

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State as well as Mr.M.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

5. Perused the material on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner had obtained building permission vide proceedings bearing No.BA15/2011/G1 dated 14.03.2011, the 2nd respondent did not consider the same and issued the provisional notice in a very casual manner and confirmed the same, without verifying the records. Moreover, the alleged provisional notice was not at all served on the petitioner and Section 340 and 340A of the A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 does not apply to the facts of the case and invoking said sections is arbitrary and illegal a the petitioner had duly granted building permission and the said notices are vague and failed to give any specific violation in contortion. He further contended that the complaint is admittedly filed after 01 year 06 months after petitioner completed his construction in September 2011. Therefore, the charge sheet in STC 194/2015 is liable to be quashed.

7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inhe