JUDGMENT

1. By way of this application, the applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), inter alia, praying to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. II-3055/2018 dated 20.04.2018, registered with Khadiya Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Section 30(B) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2010.

2. The facts of the case on hand are that, despite there being a specific embargo on construction within a 300-metre range of the protected monuments in the Khadiya area, the applicant herein commenced construction of a house within 100 metres of the protected monument, namely, Rani Chippri Masjid, without obtaining any permission from the Archaeological Department. Despite notice having been served upon him, the applicant completed the construction in defiance of the same and thereby committed the alleged offence, for which the FIR in question came to be lodged against the applicant.

3. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant was served with a notice under Section 264 of the GPMC Act, inter alia, contending that the property, being a house, was in a dilapidated condition and that the applicant was accordingly required to carry out necessary repairs for the purpose of security and safety.

5. It is further submitted that, with a view to getting the property in question enlisted again in the new list of heritage properties of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the applicant carried out renovation, repairs and/or reconstruction of the existing structures and has not raised any new construction on the site.

6. It is further submitted that the notice dated 14.12.2016 issued by the Archaeological Department, i.e. Respondent No.3 herein, was duly replied to by the applicant by communication dated 17.01.2017, categorically stating therein that no new construction had been raised by the applicant and that only renovation and repair work had been carried out. It is submitted that, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 264 of the GPMC Act by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (“AMC”), no further communication whatsoever was made thereafter and, directly thereafter, the FIR in question came to be registered.

7. It is further submitted that, in no manner, the repair and renovation work undertaken by the applicant falls within the definition of “construction” as defined under Section 2(dc) of the Act and, therefore, invocation of Section 30(B) of the Act is wholly erroneous. Accordingly, it is urged that the present application may be allowed and the FIR in question may be quashed and set aside.

8. As against that, learned advocate Ms. Archana U. Amin for Respondent No.3, while opposing the present application, vehemently argued that, as per the provisions of the Act, prior permission is required to be obtained from the Department for carrying out any construction or repair work if the property is situated in the regulated area. It is submitted that no such permission whatsoever has been obtained by the applicant for carrying out such construction, which is in breach of the provisions of the Act.

8.1 It is submitted that the applicant, in defiance of the notice issued, made a false statement in the reply to the effect that no construction had been carried out and, thereby, committed a breach of the provisions of the Act. It is, therefore, submitted that it cannot be said that no offence is made out as alleged in the FIR. Accordingly, it is urged that the present application, being devoid of merits, deserves to be rejected.

8.2 Learned advocate Ms. Archana U. Amin for Respondent No.3 further submits that, even otherwise, the case does not fall within the four corners of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble