The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Criminal Proceedings initiating against the Petitioner/Accused in CC. No. 1576 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy, Sangareddy District(Old C.C. No.233 of 2019 on the file of JFCM, Narsapur) for offence Under Sec. 24,41 (2) of Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1974 and Sec. 37 (1) of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Amendment Act 1987. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underr Section 528 of BNSS praying that n the circumstances stated in the fvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including persora{ appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in CC. No. 1576 of 2022 on the file of tie, Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy, Sangareddy District (Old C.C. N: 233 of 2019 on the file of JFCti4, Narsapur) pending disposal of the Quash P.roceedings This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing llre Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arg I nents of Sri. Palle Sriharinath, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri [Vl.Vivekanan c,a Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor (-[G/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No ' and of Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following Order:- a-l I THE HONOURABLE SMT..IUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3513 of 2O25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1576 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 24, 4l(2) of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974 and Section 37(1) of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Amendment Act, 1987

2. The brief facts of the case are that a private complaint was filed by respondent No.2/de facto complainant under Sections 190 and 2O0 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narsapur, Sangareddy District on

02.06.2018 against the petitioner/accused. The trial Court took cognizance of the complaint under Section 19O(a) Cr.P.C. on O6.05.2019 and issued summons to the accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that, during an inspection conducted on the night of L3.O5.2O17 , the ofhcials of the complainant Board intercepted a vehicle bearing No.AP 22 W 2 SKS,J Crl I'No.3513 of2025 357O dumping effluents illegally in an open arer: l;ehinri M/s Vij ay Iron lroundries, IDA Bollaram.

3. UporL enquiry, the driver of the vehicle s1i ted that the effluents vrerc from the petitioner/ accused cor:Lpany, M/s. Som Phyto Pharma (India) Ltd., located in IDA Fr,llarzrnr. The ofhcials seized the vehicle and took it into r:r- stody. The matter was reviewed by the Task Force Cotr rnittec in a meeting htld on 17.O5.2017, follou'ing rvhich tlrc complainant Board issued closure orders to the accused cort.;rany on the same day lor violating consent conditions a r r1 for illegal disposal o{ effluents, causing pollution in the ar,r L Due to the reorganiza -ion of districts, the case was [ran:;]rlrred to the Special Jrrdicial First Class Magistrate (Mol;i c) Court at Sangareddy, r,l.here cognizance \ ras agaitr takt:n on

06.05.201(). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner,' Lccused hled the present criminal petition.

4. Heald Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned cor-lrt,;cl appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. l'ivekananda Reddy, le,rrned Assistant Public Prosecutor .,ppearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State and Sri Zt:r:shan Adnan , . 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3s13 of 2025 Mahmood, learned Standing Counsel for T.S. Pollution Control Board appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant is not an authorized oflicer and, therefore, is not competent to file the complaint before the trial Court. He further submitted that, in terms of Section 43(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 7974, a notice of 60 days is mandatory before initiating any prosecution against a company. However, no such notice was issued to the accused company in the present case. He contended that the Pollution Control Board had granted consent/license to the petitioner's company, valid up to the year 2028, yet tlle complaint was hled in 2Ol9 without proper authorit5r and in violation of statutory provisions. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the complainant is duly authorized by the Pollution Control Board ald had hled the authorization 4 SKS,J CrL.I,.No.3513 of 2025 letter a1on3 with the afficiavit. Therefore, there ir no illegaiity in lodging the complaint. He further submitted that there arc allegations against the petitioner which requirc adjudication through trLal, and as such, quashing of the proct: 'dings at this stage does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Corr rt to dismiss the crimin ei petition.

7. In light of the submissions made by roth learned counsel and upon perusal of the material avaiia]rle on record, the only r:ontention raised by the learned cclttrseL for the petitioner is that the de facto complainar: t is rlot an authorized officer. However, a perusal of the conrlriaint reveals that the Environmental Engineer was duly autJrorized by the Pollution (lontrol Board. In fact, the complaint rvas filed by the Polhrtion Control Board, represente rl by Environmental Engineer, who also su b mitted the authorization letter along with the complaint and fi.led an affidavit zLflirming his authority. Therefore, there is no procedural irregularity in the hling of the comp 1r:rint, and the criminal trretition lacks merit and the same i ; liable to be dismissed. ::66ri.,. ^6.t3PParr 5 SI<S,J C.I.P.No.3513 of 2025 B. In vieq, of the alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking dispensation of the petitioner's personal appearance, and if no warrants are pending against the petitioner, his personal app€arance before the trial Court shall stand dispensed wiih whenever his presence is not specihcally required, subject to the condition that the petitioner is represented by his counsel on every date of hearing. In the event the petitioner fails to appear on any date specifically hxed by the trial Court for his personal appearance, this order sha1l stand automatically vacated.

9. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR I G SECTION OFFICER To, 8,,. '1 . The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile) for Trial of Cases Under PCR AclCum-ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Sangareddy.

2. fwo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT].

3. One CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 6. The Station House Officer ,Bollaram Police Station Sangareddy. HIGH COURT DATED:1510712025 ORDER CRLP.No.3S13 of 2025 4 ,! '). \B rri 86 a! i. :=:::: DISMISSING THE CRLP q. v\t