THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3513 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1576 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 24, 41(2) of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974 and Section 37(1) of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Amendment Act, 1987.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a private complaint was filed by respondent No.2/de facto complainant under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narsapur, Sangareddy District on 02.06.2018 against the petitioner/accused. The trial Court took cognizance of the complaint under Section 190(a) Cr.P.C. on 06.05.2019 and issued summons to the accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that, during an inspection conducted on the night of 13.05.2017, the officials of the complainant Board intercepted a vehicle bearing No.AP 22 W

3570 dumping effluents illegally in an open area behind M/s.

Vijay Iron Foundries, IDA Bollaram.

3. Upon enquiry, the driver of the vehicle stated that the effluents were from the petitioner/accused company, M/s. Som Phyto Pharma (India) Ltd., located in IDA Bollaram. The officials seized the vehicle and took it into custody. The matter was reviewed by the Task Force Committee in a meeting held on 17.05.2017, following which the complainant Board issued closure orders to the accused company on the same day for violating consent conditions and for illegal disposal of effluents, causing pollution in the area. Due to the reorganization of districts, the case was transferred to the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile) Court at Sangareddy, where cognizance was again taken on 06.05.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal petition.

4. Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Standing Counsel for T.S. Pollution Control Board appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant is not an authorized officer and, therefore, is not competent to file the complaint before the trial Court. He further submitted that, in terms of Section 43(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, a notice of 60 days is mandatory before initiating any prosecution against a company. However, no such notice was issued to the accused company in the present case. He contended that the Pollution Control Board had granted consent/license to the petitioner’s company, valid up to the year 2028, yet the complaint was filed in 2019 without proper authority and in violation of statutory provisions. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the complainant is duly authorized by the Pollution Control Board and had filed the authorization letter along with the affidavit. Therefore, there is no illegality in lodging the complaint. He further submitted that there are allegations against the petitioner which require adjudication through trial, and as such, quashing of the proceedings at this stage does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the de facto complainant is not an authorized officer. However, a perusal of the complaint reveals that the Environmental Engineer was duly authorized by the