Judgment · High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 ss. 52, 53, 54
- Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966 ss. 52, 53, 54
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/criwp/439/10
Judgment
Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Rakh, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 28th April, 2010 PER COURT :
This Writ Petition is filed for seeking quashment of a complaint and the registration of an offence arising from the complaint.
One Sk. Rizwan Hanif, a employee of the Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar, lodged a complaint against the petitioner to the Police Station Tofkhana, Ahmednagar, alleging that the petitioner erected unauthorizedly certain cement concrete structure making encroachment on a public road. He stated that he personally verified the encroachment and the existence of the structure. On this complaint, the police registered offence under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner asserted that the 2 complaint would not amount to an offence under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and so, he sought quashment of the FIR.
It is obvious that the police had committed an error in applying the provisions of Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, instead of applying the provisions of Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966. During the investigation, the police would have certainly realized their error. The complainant himself would have brought the error to the notice of the Investigation Officer. But, the petitioner / accused thought, he should take advantage of the error committed by the police in recording of the FIR, and, hurriedly approached this Court. The petitioner should have realized that he has no case to get the complaint and the offence registered pursuant to the FIR quashed. On the face of it, the allegations make out an offence under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966.
The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/criwp/439/10
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — ss. 52, 53, 54; Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966 — ss. 52, 53, 54.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 28 Apr 2010. The bench was A V NIRGUDE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.