The applicant sought to quash a court order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding unauthorized construction in Moradabad. The court held that finding the upon merits was inappropriate at this stage.
None. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the appellate order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1680 of 2004
Applicant :- Akhilesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- J.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
^^1;g fd fnukd 29-7-02 dks Fkkuk {ks= e>kSyk eqjknkckn dk nkSjk djrs le; vfHk;ksxh ds laKku esa vk;k fd vfHk;qDr }kjk ekuljksoj dkyksuh eqjknkckn es Hkwry ij rhu dejs fdpu] ckFk:e dk fuekZ.k dk;Z tkjh gS LFky ij ekufp= dh Lohdfr ugha fn[kk;h x;h gSA 2- ;g fd vfHk;ksxh us rRdky fnukad 29-7-02 dks mDr fuekZ.k dks fjiksVZ izi= Mh ij izkf/kdr vf/kdkjh dks izsf"kr dj nh ftl ij izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh us vfHk;qDr ds fo:) m0iz0 u0fu0 ,oa fo0 vf/k0 1973 ds vUrxZr /kkjk 27 dk uksfVl o vkns'k /kkjk 28 fnukafdr 3-8-02 tkjh dj fn;s ftudh rkehy Mkd juj xqyQke }kjk vfHk;qDr ij djk;h x;hA 3- ;g fd vfHk;ksxh }kjk {ks= dk iqu% nkSjk djus ds le; vfHk;ksxh us ik;k fd vfHk;qDr dk fuekZ.k dk;Z tkjh gS rFkk fufeZr fuekZ.k ;Fkkor gSA 4- ;g fd vfHk;qDr }kjk m0iz0 u0 fu0 ,oa fo0 vf/k0 1973 dh /kkjk 14 o tksuy MoyiesUV Iyku ¼/kkjk&9½ dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k tks fd ,d
2
n.Muh; vijk/k gsA
5- ;g fd vfHk;ksxh us viuh fjiksVZ fnukad 20-8-02 dks vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vfHk;ksx pyk;s tkus gsrq Lohdr ¼m0iz0u0fu0 ,oa fo0 vf/k0 1973 dh /kkjk 49 ds vUrxZr½ mik/;{k egksn; ds le{k e; vuqyXudksa ds izsf"kr dj nh ftl ij mik/;{k egksn; us viuh Lohdfr fnukad 16-12-02 dks iznku dj nhA
vr% Jheku~ th ls izkFkZuk gS fd vfHk;qDr ds fo:) m0iz0 uxj fu;kstu ,oa fodkl vf/kfu;e 1973 dh /kkjk 26 ¼1½ o 28 ¼4½ ds vUrxZr vfHk;ksx lafLFkr dj fu;ekuqlkj nf.Mr djus dh d`ik djsaA**
"1. That on 29.7.02 it came to the notice of the complainant during his inspection under P.S. Majhaula in Moradabad that construction of three rooms, kitchen and bathroom is being done by the accused on the ground floor of Mansarovar Colony, Moradabad and no approval for site map has been shown.
2. That the complainant, on 29.7.02, immediately forwarded a report on Form D to the competent authority regarding the aforesaid construction, whereupon the competent authority issued notice u/s 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 and order dated 3.8.02 under section 28 of the said act which were served on accused by dak runner Gulfam.
3. That at the time of re-inspection of the area by the complainant, he found construction work by the accused to be in progress and the construction done to be as before.
4. That the accused violated section 14 of the U.P Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 and Zonal Development Plan (section 9), which is a punishable offence.
5. That the complainant submitted a report dated 20.8.02 seeking sanction to prosecution against accused (under section 49 of the U.P Urban Planning and Development Act 1973) alongwith annexures before the Vice Chairman who on 16.12.02 granted his approval.
3
Hence, it is requested that a case be registered against accused u/s 26 (1) and 28(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 and punishment be awarded as per rule." (English translation by Court)
Order Date :- 22.10.2019 PS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the CrPC Section 482 application filed for quashing the complaint u/s 26(1) and 28(4) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 should be allowed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Akhilesh Chauhan
State Of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
