SHRIRAM Vs. THAKURDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants in this Criminal Application, (hereinafter referred to as accused Nos. 1 and 2) in Criminal Case No. 12275/1976/v. O. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Second Court, Amravati, have filed this application Under Section 397 read with Section 401 as also Under Section 482 of the Cr. PC praying that the proceedings in the above-mentioned criminal case be quashed.

(2.) NON-APPLICANT No. 1 in this application (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'), has filed the criminal case in question against the two accused alleging that offences Under Sections 380, 425 and 441 as also Under Section 109 of the I P. C. have been committed. The allegations in the complaint are that the complainant was running a hotel in a tin-shed in Municipal House No. 231/8 at Amravati. Accused No. 1 is the Chief Officer of the Amravati Municipal Council, while accused No. 2 is the sub-overseer working in the Municipal Council. The complainant further alleges that accused No. 1 prosecuted the complainant in Criminal Case No. 519/1972 for constructing the said hotel without municipal permission. The complainant admitted that he was fined in that case. Thereafter accused No. 1 issued two notices on Feb. 3, 1976 and March 17, 1976, asking the complainant to demolish the building. In the first notice it was stated that the demolition was necessary as the construction was without municipal permission, while in the latter notice it is stated that the construction was an encroachment. The notice was not complied with. Accused No. 1, therefore, ordered the demolition of the structure on April 39, 1976. This order was carried out by the accused No. 2 on May 10, 1976 with the help of labourers. The material of the demolished structure had been removed to the Municipal Council premises. The complainant alleges that he has suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 8,000/ -. After making these averments, he has alleged in para 2 of the complaint as follows: Thus, accused No. 1 illegally ordered on 30-4-76 the accused No. 2 contravention of the provisions of Municipal Act, to commit theft, mischief and criminal misappropriation and accused No. 2 accordingly committed these offences. This complaint was placed before the Magistrate, who passed an order on Nov. SO, 1976, that the case be registered Under Sections 109, 425 and 380 of the IPC end that the summons be issued to the accused. Thus, the Magistrate took cogni-2ance on the basis of this complaint and it is this order that is being challenged in the present application.

(3.) MR. Ghare for the complainant contended that the impugned order is only an interlocutory order as contemplated by Section 397 (2) of the Cr. PC and, as such, a revision is not tenable. There seems to be much substance in this contention and I do not think that the accused can come in revision against that order.