Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Baloda, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24903-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 563 of 2023 Shri Ashwini Kumar S/o Late Shri Dhanad Ram Dadsena Aged About 59 Years R/o - Rurani Basti, Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Baloda, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rakesh Kumar Soni S/o Late Gopal Prasad Soni Aged About 51 Years Occupation Deputy Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/ State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. Advocate. CRMP No. 528 of 2023 1 - Smt. Kiran Rohra W/o Rajesh Rohra Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Sindhi Colony, Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 2 - Smt. Kanchan Guriyani W/o Shankar Guriyani Aged About 44 Years R/o Mahasati Mandir Ward, Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Akhilesh Trivedi S/o Shankar Dayal Trivedi Aged About 46 Years R/o Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Baloda, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rakesh Kumar Soni S/o Late Gopal Prasad Soni Aged About 51 Years Occupation Deputy Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shahil Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 / State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. CRMP No. 594 of 2023 1 - Madhuri Rani Saraf W/o Kanhaiya Lal Saraf Aged About 70 Years 2 - Vijay Saraf S/o Lt. Bhagwandin Aged About 64 Years 3 - Suresh Saraf S/o Lt. Bhagwandin Aged About 60 Years 4 - Sanjay Saraf S/o Lt. Bhagwandin Aged About 58 Years 5 - Vinay Saraf S/o Lt. Bhagwandin Aged About 55 Years All R/o - Kanha Vihar Baloda Bazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 3 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House OfÏcer Baloda, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rakesh Kumar Soni S/o Lt. Gopal Prasad Soni Aged About 51 Years Occupation - Deputy Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Baloda Bazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent No. 1/ State For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. S.S.Baghel, Mr. Advocate. Deputy Government : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Shahil Singh, learned counsel for the respective petitioners as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. By these petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 111/2023 registered at Police Station, Baloda, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara for the offences under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 339-C of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, the Act of 1961) alongwith the consequential proceedings. 3. Since in all these petitions, the facts and issue involved are identical, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 4. The petitioners had certain lands which were sold in pieces to other 4 persons. It is alleged that the petitioners have developed colonies illegal without following the due procedure of law and violated the provisions of the Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. Notices were issued to the petitioners before lodging of the FIRs which was duly replied by the petitioners. However, without considering the reply, an FIR has been lodged against the respective petitioners alleging that because of the act of the petitioners, the State had to bear great financial losses. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submit that Section 420 and 34 of the IPC has been added in the FIR just to give the alleged offence a serious crime and in fact no such act has been committed. Had it been a case where only the offence under the Act of 1961 was alleged, then only a complaint case before the Magistrate was tenable. No notice was given to the petitioners under Section 37(86)(a) (b) of the Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam to explain the stand of the petitioners and no opportunity of hearing was provided. The present is a civil/commercial dispute and as such a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. was required to be given to the petitioner before any FIR could be registered. 6. It is further submitted that in the present case, the FIR has been lodged by a Deputy Engineer of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Balodabazar, who was not competent to lodge the FIR and as such, these petitions deserve to be allowed. For lodging an FIR for an offence punishable under Section 339-C of the Act of 1961, is the Chief Municipal OfÏcer. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court to Section 313 of the Act of 1961 and submits that where a complaint suffers from fundamental 5 legal defect, such as want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority, the FIR can be quashed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the contesting party in these petitions is the respondent No. 2 and the FIR has been registered by the respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent No. 2. He further submits that when a cognizable offence is brought to the notice of the police, the police is bound to register the same. The FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint made by the respondent No. 2 disclosing commission of cognizable offence. 8. Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, relying on the return filed, submits that the respondent No. 2 was authorised by the Chief Municipal OfÏcer in writing on 20.02.2023 to register an FIR against the petitioners and as per Section 92 of the Act of 1961, the Chief Municipal OfÏcer is authorised to delegate in writing any work to be performed by any other ofÏcer of the Municipal Council. As per the said provision, the Chief Municipal OfÏcer is authorised to delegate any work which is vested in him to be performed by any other Municipal OfÏcer in writing and under his superintendence and this is what has exactly been done in the present cases. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. The issue involved in this petition is whether a Deputy Engineer of Nagar Palika Parsiahd, can lodge an FIR against the petitioners herein who are alleged to have constructed illegal colonies in violation of Section 339- C of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. 6 11. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Section 313 of the Municipalities Act, 1961, the competent authority for lodging the report for an offence punishable under Section 399-C of the Municipalities Act, 1961 is the Chief Municipal OfÏcer and the FIR could not have been registered on the report of any other person, and in the present cases, the respondent No. 2. 12. It would be relevant to quote Section 313 of the Municipalities Act, 1961 which reads as under: “313. Council may prosecute. - (1) The Council, the Chief Municipal OfÏcer or any other ofÏce authorised by the Council in this behalf in the case of Municipal Council and the Council or any other ofÏcer authorised by the Council in this behalf in the case of other classes of Municipality may direct - (I) any prosecution for any offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder; (ii) proceedings to be taken for the recovery of any penalties and for the punishment of any person offending against the provisions of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made thereunder; and (iii) that the expenses of such prosecutions or other proceedings be paid out of the Municipal fund: Provided that no prosecution for an offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder shall be instituted except - (i) within 12 months next after the date of the commission of such offence; or (ii) if such date is not known or the offence is a continuing one, within twelve months next after the date on which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to the notice of the Council or of any ofÏcer or servant whose duty it is to report such offence to the Council. 7 (2) Any prosecution under this Act or under any rule or bye-law thereunder may, save as therein otherwise provided by, instituted before any Magistrate; and every fine or penalty imposed under or by virtue of this Act or any rule or bye-law thereunder, and any compensation, expenses, charges or damages for the recovery of which no special provision is otherwise made in this Act may be recovered on application to any Magistrate by the distress or sale of any movable property within the limits of his jurisdiction belonging to the person from whom the money is claimed. ” 13. A bare reading of the above provision makes it amply clear that the prosecution for any offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder can be directed only by the Council, the Chief Municipal OfÏcer or any other OfÏcer authorised by the Council in this behalf. In the present case, the Chief Municipal OfÏcer has authorised the Deputy Engineer for lodging of the FIR and and the said person was not authorised by the Council itself meaning thereby that delegation of power by the Chief Municipal OfÏcer to the Deputy Engineer was illegal and the Deputy Engineer was not at all empowered to lodge the FIR. 14. As such, the FIR lodged against the petitioners bearing Crime No. 111/2023 registered at Police Station, Baloda, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, is quashed. Consequently, these petitions stand allowed. However, it will be open for the competent authority to lodge complaint, in accordance with law, against the petitioners, if so required. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.18 19:21:37 +0530