The central legal point established in the judgment is that the abatement of a nuisance, as confirmed by the complainant and verified by the relevant authority, can lead to the quashing of proceedings under the Municipal Corporation Act.

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. Petitioner nos.1 and 2, who are former and incumbent Chairpersons, respectively, of ameeta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., have preferred this petition to quash and set aside the proceedings in Complaint CC No.4114979/SS/2015 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 381 read with Section 471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation act, 1988 ('the Municipal Corporation act').

3. The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts:

(a) On 9th June, 2015, respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation addressed a notice to Mr. Mukesh Mehta, respondent no.4, the occupier of Flat No.51, 11th Floor, Kashmira ameeta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., ('the Society'), petitioner no.1, the then Chairperson, and petitioner no.2, the then Secretary, of the Society, under Section 381 of the Municipal Corporation act to discontinue or abate the nuisance or/and to prevent its recurrence by taking effective measures and work as indicated therein, namely, to locate the exact source/cause of leakage and abate the nuisance by proper means. The said notice was issued as respondent no.3 had filed the complaint with the Municipal Corporation regarding leakage from the South-East bathroom of Flat No.54, on the 11th Floor, into the ceiling and side walls of the bathroom and bedroom of respondent no.3's flat, on the 10th floor. Eventually, alleging that the nuisance was not abated and action was not taken in conformity with the said notice, a complaint was lodged by the authorized officer of the Municipal Corporation in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewaid, Mumbai, leading to CC No.4114979/SS/2015.

4. The petitioners preferred an application for discharge (Exhibit-59) asserting, inter alia, that the nuisance complained of was, in fact, abated and the de facto complainant's grievance was duly redressed. By an order dated 24th January, 2022, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was persuaded to reject the application holding, inter alia, that the nuisance was not abated during the period stipulated in the notice and even otherwise in a summons trial there was no provision for discharge of the accused.

5. Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners, who are senior citizens, constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. Laying emphasis on the fact that there is overwhelming material to demonstrate that the nuisance, as alleged, was abated and the grievance of the de facto complainant stood redressed, Mr. Mundargi would urge that the ends of justice would be secured by quashing and setting aside the prosecution.

6. attention of the Court was invited to the Inspection Report dated 1st april, 2017, which records that no leakage/dampness of ceiling and side walls of bathroom and bedroom, as complained of, in the notice under Section 381 dated 9th June, 2015, was found. Banking upon a communication dated 9th March, 2022 addressed by respondent no.3 the de facto complainant, wherein respondent no.3 categorically asserted that the nuisance of leakage had been abated and resolved and respondent no.3 had informed the said fact to the Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 10th January, 2017, Mr. Mundargi submitted that the continuation of the prosecution is wholly unwarranted.

7. In the said letter dated 9th March, 2022, respondent no.3 has indeed asserted that the nuisance was abated and the said fact was brought to the notice of the Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 10th January, 2017. Respondent no.3 further confirmed that as of date there was no leakage from the upper floor into her flat.

8. Respondent no.3 has appeared and filed an affidavit giving her no objection to quash the proceedings. Paragrap