Criminal proceedings initiated under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, are liable to be quashed if the mandatory sanction from the Municipal Council, as required under Section 366, is not obtained.

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7323 of 2023

DATE OF ORDER:04.05.2026

Between:

Sadhu Nagamallikarjuna Rao

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another

...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the

petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him

in C.C.No.1672 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate

of First Class at Miryalaguda.

2. Heard Mr.Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel for

petitioner, Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel for

Municipalities appearing for respondent No.2, and

2

Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing

for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

present petition is not maintainable for want of proper sanction

and that the sanction obtained by the complainant is without any

authority. He further submitted that the sanction ought to have

been obtained from the Municipal Council for filing the complaint.

However, in the present case, the sanction was granted by the

Commissioner of Miryalaguda Municipality to the Town Planning

Building Overseer. Based on the said sanction, the Town

Planning Building Overseer has lodged the complaint under

Section 340 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. He further

contended that, in the absence of sanction from the appropriate

authority, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner

would be an abuse of process of law. He also relied upon the

order passed in Crl.P.No.1420 of 2023 by a learned Single Judge

of this Court. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities

submitted that although the Act provides that sanction has to be

granted by the Municipal Council, in the absence of the Municipal

Council, the sanction was obtained from the Municipal

3

Commissioner, and the same would not vitiate the proceedings.

He further submitted that, considering the objective behind

lodging the complaint, the case may be considered appropriately

and prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record.

6. The complaint was lodged under Sections 209, 210,

211, 216, 340 and 360 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act,

1965, against the petitioner herein without obtaining any sanction

from the Municipal Council, thereby violating Section 366 of the

Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. Hence, without going

into the merits of the case and by applying the same analogy as

held in Crl.P.No.1420 of 2023, the present petition is allowed, and

the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1672 of 2014, on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at

Miryalaguda, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.