Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Laxmandass Krishnani v. Municipal Council, Guna and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3547 of 2016 (Gwalior); against order dated 19.2.2016 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Revision No.212/2015; Decided on 4.4.2017.
K.N. Gupta with R.K. Sharma for applicant;
Arun Dudawat for respondent No.1;
Girdhari Singh Chauhan, Public Presecutor for respondent No.2/State.
Headnote:¼1½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒizŒ½ & /kkjk 339&d] 339&x] 312 rFkk 313 & eŒizŒ uxjikfydk ¼dkyksukbtj dk jftLVªhdj.k fuca/ku rFkk 'krsZ½ fu;e] 1998 & fuŒ 3 rFkk 15&x & eŒizŒ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 & /kkjk 172 & 1961 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 339&x ds v/khu vijk/k & vkijkf/kd ifjokn dkSu izLrqr dj ldrk gS & uxjikfydk {ks= esa HkwfeLokeh vf/kdkjksa esa /kkfjr Hkwfe & fcuk O;iorZu vkSj dkWyksukbtj ds :i esa jftLVªhdj.k fcuk & dkWyksuh dh LFkkiuk ds fy, Hkwfe Hkw&[kaMksa esa foHkkftr & HkwfeLokeh }kjk ogh fofHkUu O;fDr;ksa dks foØ; dh xbZ & mi [kaM vf/kdkjh dh lwpuk ij & eq[; uxjikfydk vf/kdkjh }kjk vkijkf/kd ifjokn izLrqr fd;k x;k & /kkjk 339&x ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 312 ds v/khu iwoZ eatwjh ds fcuk & eq[; uxjikfydk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 313 ds v/khu vkijkf/kd ifjokn izLrqr djus ds fy, l{ke gSA ¼iSjk 2] 3 ,oa 12 ls 16½
¼2½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒizŒ½ & /kkjk 312 rFkk 313 & dk ykxw gksuk & nksuksa mica/k i`Fkd~ gSa & eq[; uxjikfydk vf/kdkjh }kjk Lo;a uxjikfydk ifj"kn dh vksj ls vkijkf/kd ifjokn izLrqr fd;k x;k & ;k ,slk ifjokn eq[; uxjikfydk vf/kdkjh ds funs'k ds v/khu fdlh vU; O;fDr }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k & dksbZ fHkUurk ugha gksxh & /kkjk 313 ds mica/k ykxw gksaxs & /kkjk 312 ds mica/k ykxw ugha gksaxs & ,slk ifjokn fof/k ds vuqlkj gSA ¼iSjk 12 ls 16½
¼3½ uxjikfydk ¼dkWyksukbtj dk jftLVªhdj.k fuca/ku rFkk ’krsZ½ fu;e] 1998 ¼eŒizŒ½ & fuŒ 2¼t½ rFkk 15&x & eŒizŒ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk
339&x rFkk 313 & fu;eksa ds v/khu l{ke izkf/kdkjh & mi[kaM vf/kdkjh gS & vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 339&x ds v/khu vijk/k & vkijkf/kd ifjokn izLrqr djus ds fy, & eq[; uxjifkydk vf/kdkjh l{ke gS vkSj u fd mi[kaM vf/kdkjhA izdh.kZ vkijkfèkd ekeyk Øekad 599@2013] fu.khZr fnukad 4-12-2013 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 17 ls 20½
¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & eŒizŒ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 339&x & mica/k ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr & vkjksi fojfpr djus ds vkns'k ds fo#) iqujh{k.k & [kkfjt fd;k x;k & /kkjk 482 ds v/khu gLr{ksi visf{kr ugha & ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh xbZA ¼iSjk 3] 4 ,oa 22 ls 24½
(1) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.339-A, 339-C, 312 and 313 -- M.P. Municipality (Registration of Coloniser, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 -- Rr.3 and 15-C -- M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S.172 -- offence under section 339-C of Act of 1961 -- who can file criminal complaint -- land held in Bhumiswami rights in municipal area -- without diversion and without registration as coloniser -- land divided into plots for establishment of colony -- same sold to different persons by Bhumiswami -- on information of Sub-Divisional Officer -- criminal complaint filed by Chief Municipal Officer -- charges framed under section 339-C -- without prior sanction under section 312 of Act -- Municipal Council is competent to file criminal complaint under section 313 of Act. [Paras 2, 3 & 12 to 16
(2) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.312 and 313 -- applicability of -- both provisions are separate -- criminal complaint filed by Chief Municipal Officer himself on behalf of Municipal Council -- or such complaint filed by other person under direction of Chief Municipal Officer -- would not make any difference -- provisions of section 313 would apply -- provisions of section 312 would not apply -- such complaint is in accordance with law. [Paras 12 to 16
(3) Municipality (Registration of Coloniser, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 (M.P.) -- Rr.2(h) and 15-C -- M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 -- Ss.339-C and 313 -- competent authority under the rules -- is Sub-Divisional Officer -- offence under section 339-C of Act -- for filing criminal complaint -- Chief Municipal Officer is competent and not of Sub-Divisional Officer. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.599/2013; Decided on 4.12.2013 relied on. [Paras 17 to 20
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 -- S.339-C -- charges framed under -- revision against order of framing charges -- dismissed -- no interference called for under section 482 -- petition dismissed. [Paras 3, 4 & 22 to 24
1. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 19.2.2016 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Revision No.212/2015 by which the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by JMFC, Guna in Criminal Case No.2099/2010, framing charge under section 339-C of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, was affirmed.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent No.1 filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for offence under section 339-C of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act. It is the case of the respondents that the applicant is a Bhumiswami of Agricultural land bearing Survey No.1176/1/6 area 0.248 hectare which is situated within the limits of the Municipal Council. A person who is intending to take up a work of establishment of the colony(s) in the area of Municipal Council for the purposes of dividing the land into plot with or without developing the area, transfers or agrees to transfer gradually or at a time, to persons desirous of settling down on those plots by constructing residential or non-residential or composite accommodation is required to get himself registered as a colonizer as per the provisions under section 339-A of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act. After obtaining the registration, the applicant was required to get the land diverted as per the provisions of section 172 of the MPLR Code. It was further alleged that after getting the land diverted, the applicant was required to carry out certain development works as per the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhinium. It was also alleged that without getting himself registered as a colonizer and without getting the land diverted, the applicant, with an intention to establish the colony, divided the entire land in different plots and started selling the same and, thus, violated the statutory provisions. The SDO, Guna, by its order dated 22.9.2010, informed the respondent that the applicant by executing registered sale deeds on 23.11.2009, 1.12.2009, 1.6.2009, 12.8.2009, 12.8.2009 and 5.6.2009 has sold the plots to different persons and has also started raising construction of a colony. Thus, it was alleged that the applicant has violated the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 as well as under section 339-A of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. The applicant has not obtained any permission under any statutory provisions and, accordingly, the complaint was filed.
3. By order dated 13.10.2015, the Magistrate rejected the contention of the applicant that the complaint has been filed by an incompetent person and, accordingly, framed charge under section 339-C of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act and fixed the case for recording of evidence of the witnesses.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Magistrate, the applicant filed Criminal Revision No.212/2015 which has suffered dismissal by order dated 19.2.2016 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna.
5. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that as per the provisions of section 312 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, legal proceedings cannot be instituted without previous sanction of the council and, since, in the present case, the sanction of the council has not been obtained before filing of the complaint, therefore, the complaint suffers from legal defect and, accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the allegations are that without obtaining the license as required under the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998, the applicant had divided the land into plots and had intended to take up the work of establishment of colony, therefore, the prosecution of the applicant is bad as the competent authority has not filed the complaint. The competent authority has been defined and, therefore, in view of rule 15-C of Mad
