YOGENDRA DUSAJ Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-235
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on March 20,2018

Yogendra Dusaj Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Madhya Pradesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.S.AHLUWALIA,J. - (1.) This Criminal Revision under Section 397 / 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 7-12-2016 passed by J.M.F.C., Guna in Criminal Case No. 1321/2011 by which the charges under Sections 420 of I.P.C. and under Section 339-C of M.P. Municipalities Act, have been framed.
(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that a F.I.R. was lodged by the S.D.M., against the applicant on the allegation that the applicant has illegally established a colony on the land, Survey No. 1134/04, 1138/01, Patwari Halka No.75, situated at village Guna. It is the case of the prosecution, that without getting registered as a Colonizer and Builder under the Municipalities Act , 1961 or under M.P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer) Rules, the applicant has illegally developed a colony, even without getting the land diverted for residential purposes. The charge sheet was filed on 4-5-2011. The applicant had earlier filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 1814/2015 for quashing the F.I.R., however, the said application was dismissed by this Court by order dated 4-9-2015.
(3.) It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that since, the S.D.M. was not a competent authority, therefore, the F.I.R. could not have been lodged by the S.D.M. In the present case, since, the F.I.R. has been lodged on the report of the S.D.M., therefore, the entire prosecution is bad, because of non- competence of the S.D.M. to lodge the F.I.R. To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947. Further, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that even if the entire allegations are accepted, it would be clear that none of the purchasers has made a complaint, therefore, the charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. is not made out.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.