MAMIDI VENU MADHAV Vs. RAMA KANTH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has filed this revision case challenging the orders dated 9-9-2009 passed in C.C.(SR)No. 5458 of 2009 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, dismissing the complaint filed by him.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, are as follows. The petitioner herein filed a complaint against the respondents alleging that they are allowing immersion of Ganesh idols in Hussainsagar Lake and thereby Iron pieces, Plaster of Paris, Colours mixed with chemicals etc., are polluting the waters of the Lake. The petitioner also narrated the process of immersion and its consequential effect on the Lake and how it is causing pollution. He alleges that the respondents have committed the offences punishable under Sections 277, 268, 425, 107 and 116 IPC and under Section 23(3) read with Section 35(1)(2) of WALTA Act. The office of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the offence had taken place at Hussain Sagar, Hyderabad, which is within the limits of Police Station Saifabad and Gandhinagar and both the police stations do not come under the jurisdiction of the said Court. Accordingly, the complaint was returned with an endorsement that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint was resubmitted by the complaint with an endorsement that Hussain Sagar comes under the jurisdiction of Police Stations Saifabad, Gandhinagar, Ramgopalpet and Panjagutta and that the Chief Metropolitan magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, has over all jurisdiction in Metropolitan areas and that the Court has ample jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Then the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by making an observation that the previous objection was not complied with and that the complainant contended that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is having jurisdiction over the entire city, called the matter on Bench for hearing. The mater was posted to 3-9-2009. On that day the complainant was absent and there was no representation. Then the matter was posted to 9-9-2009. On that date also the complainant was absent and there was no representation. Hence, the complaint was dismissed.

(3.) The revision petitioner, who is an Advocate and appearing as party-in-person, submitted that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, is having over all jurisdiction over Hyderabad and Secunderabad Metropolitan area and he cannot dismiss the complaint. He further submitted that even if the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, he ought to have returned the same as provided under Section 201 Cr.P.C. for presentation before the proper Court. In support of his contention he relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1) 1985 Cri.L.J 301.