DEEPA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 1st December, 1993 passed by Mr. S.P. Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara in case FIR No. 67/1989 under Section 332/466-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act). The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows :

(2.) The Deputy Commissioner-A of the Municipal Corpor- ation of Delhi (for short 'the Corporation) sent "a complaint bearing No. AEE/52/89/2032 dated 17th February, 1989" to the SHO, Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi against the peti- tioner under Section 466A of the Act alleging therein that the petitioner had made certain deviations in the construc- tion of the building in violation of the sanctioned building plan. The property in question where the alleged deviations have been made by the petitioner is B-26, East Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The police on receiving the complaint initiated investigation into the matter and recorded the statement of the Junior Engineer and others. On completion of the inves- tigation, a police report was filed in the Court of Mr. S.P. Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 332 read with Section 461 of the Act and proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner. At that stage the petitioner took the objec- tion that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the offence as no complaint had been filed before the Court by any officer of the Corporation authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf. The petitioner also argued that the Metropolitan Magistrate was not competent to hold the trial as under Sec- tion 470 of the Act an offence against the Act or any Rules or Regulation or Bye-law made thereunder is cognizable by a Municipal Magistrate appointed under Section 461 of the Act. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 1st December, 1993 rejected the objections of the petitioner. By the same order he came to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 332 of the Act and the Court had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case. It is this order which has been impugned in the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehe- mently argued that under Section 467 of the Act no court can proceed to the trial of any offence under Section 332 of the Act except on the complaint of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi or any person authorised by him by a general or special order in this behalf and since no com- plaint has been filed by the Commissioner or any person authorised by him, the Metropolitan Magistrate ought not to have proceeded with the trial of the case on a police report. He also contended that the Metropolitan Magistrate has no authority to take cognizance of the offence under the Act and it is only a Municipal Magistrate who could have taken cogni- zance of the offence under Section 470 of the Act.