IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with fire safety requirements and addressing objections raised by the fire safety department is essential to determine the continuation of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed seeking to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 and 15 in STC.No.7 of 2015 on the file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 13 and 19 of the A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 and Rules 15 and 27 of A.P. Fire and Emergency Operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006.

2. The Assistant District Fire Officer, West Zone, Madhapur, Hyderabad has filed a complaint against the owner/occupier of M/s.SHL Ventures, Block Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at Sy.Nos.26/A, 27 to 31 and 32P at Kothagudem and 32 to 35 at Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District, alleging that they have failed to take fire safety and fire preventive measures.

3. The Inspecting Committee authorized under Sec. 20 of A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999, inspected the premises on 31/3/2015 after issuing notice in Form No.9 of A.P. Fire and Emergency Operation and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006, dtd. 31/3/2015 to the owner/occupier of multi storied building of M/s.SHL Ventures. It is further contended that the District Fire Officer, West Zone, Ranga Reddy District has issued notice dtd. 9/4/2015, in Form No.12 as per Rule 26 of A.P. Fire and Emergency Operation and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006 to provide fire safety systems and fire preventive measures ensuring the safety of residents, within 30 days from the date of receipt of said notice.

4. It is alleged that the owner/occupier has constructed the multi storied building M/s. SHL Ventures, Block Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at Sy.Nos.26/A, 27 to 31 and 32P at Kothagudem and 32 to 35 at Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District, in Basement-I plus Basement-II plus ground floor plus 7 upper floors with a height of 23.80 meters for residential occupancy and occupied the building without providing the fire preventive and fire safety systems and not obtained the 'No objection certificate' for occupancy from the Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Service Department under the provisions of Sec. 13 of the A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 and National Building Code of India, 2005. The owner/ occupier had failed to provide the minimum requirements of fire fighting installations as required under Sec. 23 of the National Building Code of India, 2005.

5. Heard Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents.

6. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners that even if the allegations made in the STC are taken to be true on their face value, they does not satisfy the ingredients of offences under Ss. 13 and 19 of the A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999 and Rules 15 and 27 of the A.P. Fire and Emergency Operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006. Not even a single averment or allegation or charge is made against the petitioners with respect to committing of alleged offences, therefore, registering the offences and continuation of same is abuse of process of criminal justice. It is further contended that the deficiencies pointed out in the STC, which form basis for impugned criminal action against the petitioners, were not present at the time of issuance of final NOC and NOC had been given showing minor deficiencies, and therefore, there cannot be any violation of the NOC conditions. It is further contended that Sec. 19 of the A.P. Fire Service Act talks about owner/occupier and that the petitioners, in their replies dtd. 16/5/2015 and 18/6/2015, have specifically stated that the deficiencies with respect to the working of the fire safety and preventive systems have been attended and have been restored to order, and therefore, no offence can be made out under Sec. 19 of the Act. Further, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners that the respondents, without undertaking any further inspection pursuant to the show cause notice, have directly initiated steps and filed the present STC and it is settle