THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 639 OF 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 236 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in the above Calendar Case facing accusations for the offence punishable under Section 340 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, for the violation of plan approved by the Municipality under Sections 217(1), (2) and (3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Act, 1965’).

3. I have heard Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.2-State.

4. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that while the petitioner was constructing a residential apartment, the construction was carried out in deviation from the approved plan. Consequently, the complainant, who was serving as the Town Planning Supervisor of Miryalaguda Municipality, issued a provisional notice dated 17.08.2010 under the provisions of the Municipalities Act, directing the petitioner to dismantle the deviated portion. This was followed by a confirmation order dated 24.08.2010.

Further, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in W.P. Nos. 27826 and 29264 of 2010, by order dated 20.12.2010, directed the petitioner/accused not to proceed with further construction, and further restrained the occupation or use of the building until rectification of the deviations was made within six months. Despite this, the petitioner/accused neither rectified the deviations nor complied with the Court’s order. On the contrary, on 09.01.2011, the petitioner laid another slab, prompting the Municipality to issue further notices dated 05.01.2011 and 10.01.2011.

In response, the petitioner/accused submitted letters acknowledging their inability to remove the deviated portion and instead requested that the deviations be regularized upon payment of penalty. This conduct demonstrated non-compliance not only with the notices issued by the Municipality but also with the binding directions of the High Court. Accordingly, the complainant lodged a report alleging an offence under Section 340 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for initiating prosecution under the Municipalities Act, the complaint must be filed either by the Commissioner of the Municipality or by a person specifically authorized by the Council. In the present case, the complaint was filed by the Town Planning Supervisor, purportedly under an authorization given by the Commissioner of Miryalaguda Municipality. It is submitted that the statute does not empower the Commissioner to delegate or authorize any person to lodge a complaint on his behalf. Thus, the very foundation of the prosecution is unsustainable in law.

It is further argued that cognizance of the offence under Section

340 of the Act, 1965, is barred by limitation. Hence, continuance of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Crl.P. No. 11908 of 2022, where, in a similar factual situation, the proceedings were quashed on the ground that the statutory preconditions for initiating prosecution were not fulfilled. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for quashing of the present proceedings.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the complaint was validly filed by the Town Planning Supervisor, who had been duly authorized by the Commissioner under Section 56(3) of the Act, 1965, to prosecute the petitioner/accused. However, the learned Prosecutor fairly concedes that in Crl.P. No. 11908 of 2022, this Court quashed criminal proceedings on identical grounds. In light of the sam