SHIV SHANKAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, (East) Muzaffarpur in T.R. No. 1019 of 1997, arising out of Case No. C-281 of 1996 for offence under Section 35 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1982. By the said order, the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge from the case was rejected.

(2.) The case in sum and substance is that the petitioner without approval of the map by the Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority was proceeding with the construction of his building and, as such, on 14.10.1996, prosecution report was submitted by the Vice Chairman, Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority, Muzaffarpur. In column-7 of the Prosecution Report, it has been asserted that " as per report/ complaint dated 21.6.1995 the accused has started unauthorized construction of a building without obtaining sanctioned plan from M.R.D.A. and the same was ultimately detected on 21.6.1995. The notice was also served/given on 30.6.1995, 19.7.1995 to the accused, even then construction work is going on. The accused has clearly violated the provisions of Section 35 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1982, and, therefore she/he/they is/are liable to be prosecuted." In the column of accused, name of the petitioner was mentioned. After completion of appearance, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge from the case. The petition was dated 20.8.1997.

(3.) While pressing the discharge petition, it was categorically stated before the court below that the house-land in question was in the name of Pratibha Thakur, wife of the petitioner and the map for the construction of the said house was approved. It was argued that since in the prosecution report, name of actual owner of the building, in whose favour map was approved, was not made accused, the petitioner could not have been made accused in the present case.