Shailendra Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 802 of 2024

¶5

Shailendra Singh, S/o Shiv Prasad Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o C/19, Sipat Road, Rajaswa Colony, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Prosecution)

¶10

The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Through The Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, Raipur Road, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Jugal Kishore Singh, S/o Late Chandrabhan Singh, Aged About 57 Years, Working As Sub-Engineer, Nagar Palik Nigam, Bilaspur, R/o Ward No.57, Chantidih, Ashok Nagar, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) ---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For State/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

08.04.2024

¶16

The petitioner has challenged the FIR No.336/2024 dated 16.03.2024 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 292-C of

¶17

2

¶18

the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and subsequent proceedings.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of land situated at Village, Chilhati, P.H. No.19/29, R.I.C. Bilaspur, Block Bilha, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (CG) bearing Khasra No.224/8, admeasuring 0.109 hectares. The land was subdivided and sold to different persons without obtaining necessary colony development permissions from respondent No. 3 and the Town and Country Planning Office, and this act contravened the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act and its rules; thus, the offence punishable under Section 292-C of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the provisions of Section 396 of C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 only complaint can be filed and no FIR can be registered straightaway.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶23

Section 396 of the CG Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 says as under:-

¶24

“396. Procedure in prosecution.-No Magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made

¶25

3

¶26

thereunder, except on a complaint signed by the Commissioner or by any Municipal Officer or the officerin-charge of a police station authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf either generally in regard to all such offences or particularly in regard to specific offences or offences of a special class."

¶27

From a bare reading of Section 396 of the Act, 1956, it appears that FIR is not maintainable as it would be without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ appeal No. 46 of 2015 in the matter of Bhanwar Lal Parakh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, decided on 29/4/2015, while dealing with the similar issue held in para 10 as under:-

¶28

“10. The aforesaid discussion leads us to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 396 of the Act, the FIR is held to be not maintainable in the law being without jurisdiction. The prosecution of the Appellant contrary to the procedure provided under the law is held to be illegal. Consequently the F.I.R. is quashed.”

¶29

Taking into consideration the facts of the case in the light of the judgment rendered in Bhanwar Lal Parakh (supra) by Division Bench of this Court, I am inclined to allow this petition,

¶30

4

¶31

consequently, the instant petition is allowed and the FIR No. 336/2024 dated 16.03.2024 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (CG) under Section 292-C of the Act, 1956 on complaint of respondent No.4 is hereby quashed.

¶32

The respondent No.3 is at liberty to take recourse to law.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶35

Rukhsar

Shailendra Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lochan Kumari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jagriti Lautre Vs Hemant Kumar Uikey

Amit Agrawal Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Om Prakash @ Sidhu Kotwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chief Municipal Officer. Vs Madhav Sharaf

Praveen Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh