Judgment

Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 99 dated 17.03.2016 registered under Section 188 IPC, under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 33A of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 at Police Station Mujessar, District Faridabad.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the proprietor of the M/s Mahadev Forgings & Components Firm. The said unit was installed in the year 2005 after obtaining the necessary permissions and engaged in manufacturing the automobile parts by forging and compressing the raw material in hot furnaces. The Haryana State Pollution Control Board issued an order dated 12.09.2014 for closure of the unit being run by the petitioner on grounds that the same was being run without obtaining necessary permissions. The aforesaid order of closure was challenged before the Appellate authority concerned but appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2014 (Annexure P-2), upon which the unit was again sealed by the authorities. During an inspection on 30.12.2015, the unit of the petitioner was found to be operating illegally after breaking the seal imposed by HSPCB, Ballabgarh Region, i.e., in contravention to the provisions of Section 33-A of the Water Act, 1974 and 33-A of the Air Act, 1981. Thereupon, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) came to be registered against the petitioner on complaint received from Sh. KL Nagpal alleging that the said unit was operating by tempering and breaking the seal affixed by the authorities.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that as per Section 49 of the “The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter Water Act), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Board or any authorised person and similar provisions exists under Section 43 of the “The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981(hereinafter Air Act). He further submits that even FIR under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be registered in view of the bar created under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in view of the statutory provisions contained in Section 49 of the Water Act, Section 43 of the Air Act and Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the Investigating Agency has already concluded the investigation and filed the final report and the petitioner can raise all the pleas taken in the present case at the time of framing of the charges.

OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that for proper appreciation of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the following provisions need to be examined:

Section 43 of “The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

Cognizance of offences

(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by--

(a) a Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by it; or

(b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Board or officer authorised as aforesaid, and no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

(2) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Board shall, on demand by such person, make available the relevant reports in its possession to that person:

Provided that the Board may refuse to make any such report available to such person if the same is, in its opinion, against the public interest.

Section 49 of the “The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

49. Cognizance of offenc