MEENAKSHI RAWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by petitioner Meenakshi Rawal challenging the order of summoning dated 24. 4. 2006 passed in criminal complaint under Sections 347/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as DMC Act) and seeking quashing of the said summoning order as well as the complaint No. 77/2006.

(2.) RITNAND Balved Education Foundation (RBEF) had taken on rent premises No. B-1/623, second floor, Janak Puri, New Delhi, for purposes of running two institutes namely Amity Institute of Competitive Examinations (AICE) and Amity School of Distance Learning. It seems that on 18. 5. 2004 junior Engineer inspected the said premises and on the basis of his report mcd/respondent No. 3 filed a complaint under Section 347/461 of the DMC act on 30. 7. 2004 against one Ashok as owner/occupier for change of user of the property from residential to commercial. The learned Metropolitan magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused in the said complaint. On 1. 4. 2005 petitioner was appointed as an Administrative head of AICE. Another inspection was carried out by the Junior Engineer (Building), West Zone, on 2. 11. 2005. On the basis of this report a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner for offences under section 347/461 of the DMC Act for change of user of premises of the third floor B-l/623, Janak Puri, New Delhi i. e. the same house. The complaint was filed on 7. 12. 2005 and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the petitioner for 16. 4. 2007. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the summoning order on two grounds. Firstly, the complaint dated 7. 12. 2005 is barred by limitation under Section 471 of the dmc Act and secondly, complaint for the same offence with the same allegation cannot be entertained. Petitioner has also disputed her possession in respect of third floor of the above said house which is the subject matter of the complaint dated 7. 12. 2005.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the first complaint did not pertain to the third floor of property No. B-l/623, Janak puri, New Delhi and it is possible that third floor was constructed after filing of the first complaint.