Allowed

Anil Sardana and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2016WP/696/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition for quashing an FIR under Section 52 of the MRTP Act. Relying on Section 143 which makes the offence compoundable, the court ruled that since the Municipal Corporation commissioner had granted the necessary construction permission, the petition succeeded in quashing the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; Quashed and set aside registration of FIR No.1106/2015 lodged against petitioners.

Anil Sardana and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

crwp696

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.696 OF 2015

¶5

Anil Sardana & others ...Petitioners
vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with Mr.Subodh
Desai and Ms Swati Pandit, Mr.Mangesh Bhole i/b
Mulla and Mulla & C.B.C. for the Petitioners
Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the respondent No.1
Mr.Mayuresh S. Lagu for respondent No.2

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

¶9

1Rule. The learned APP waives service for the
first respondent. The learned counsel for the
second respondent waives service. Forthwith taken
up for final disposal.

¶10

2The prayer made in this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for
short Cr.P.C) is for quashing the FIR registered at
the instance of the second respondent for the
offence punishable under section 52 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 (for
short `MRTP Act').

¶11

3The first information report was lodged by the
Designated Officer of the Ward No.6 of the Mira

¶12

2 crwp696

¶13

Bhayander Municipal Corporation. The allegation is
that an electric sub station has been erected by the
Tata Power Company Limited without obtaining
permission in a No Development Zone. The petitioner
Nos.1 to 4 are the employees of the said company and
the petitioner No.5 is the Contractor appointed by
the said company.

¶14

4The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-The
Commissioner of Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation
has tendered across the bar a compilation of
documents containing a copy of permission dated 20th
July 2016 granted by the said Corporation to the
Tata Power Company Limited for construction of the
sub station subject matter of the FIR. It appears
that the Executive Engineer of the said Municipal
Corporation submitted a proposal for informing the
police not to proceed further on the basis of the
FIR in view of subsequent grant of permission. We
find from the compilation that on 20th July 2016 the
Commissioner of the said Corporation granted his
approval to the said proposal. Accordingly, on 19th
September 2016, the Executive Engineer has informed
the Law Officer of the Municipal Corporation to
submit a necessary letter to the police. The
learned APP on instructions states that said letter
is already received.

¶15

5Under sub-section 1 of section 143 of the MRTP
Act, the offence under section 52 is compoundable at
the instance of the Planning Authority. The Mira
Bhayander Municipal Corporation is the Planning

¶16

3 crwp696

¶17

Authority within the meaning of the MRTP Act. The
commissioner of the said Corporation is authorized
to compound the offence.

¶18

6Hence, the petition must succeed and we pass
the following order:

¶19

(I)Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause(c) which reads thus:
“(c) Quash and set aside the registration of
FIR No.1106/2015 lodged at the instance of
Kashimira Police Station against the
petitioners.”

¶20

(II) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy
of this order.

¶21

(A.A.SAYED,J.)

Anil Sardana and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Sardana and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhargav Dilip Dholi Vs Dilip Premjibhai Dholi and 16 Ors.

Bengal Club Vs Wecom Trust and 5 Ors. and Ramakant v Biradar (Contemnor)

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. and Bengal Club (Applicant)

Jaya Sidram Kokane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Manoj Ramkrishana Dhale Vs Abhimanyu Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Hiraman Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra