M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.) Ravi Prakash Kaushik, the petitioner, had filed a complaint under section 75 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (the Act) against Smt. Prem Lata Renuka, respondent No. 2, in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jaipur alleging therein that he was the owner of Plot No. 148 admeasuring 217 Sq. Yds. situated in Ashok Vihar Extention, Gopalpura Road Jaipur whereupon he had constructed an 8' x 12' room with latrine and Bathroom besides raising a 4 feet high boundary wall around it, that the said construction was demolished by the Officers/servants of the Jaipur Development Authority (the 'Authority') on the complaint of Smt. Renuka on the ground that the said construction had been made in contravention of Section 31(1) of the Act without taking the permission from the Authority. It was further alleged that on coming to Jaipur in the month of September 1992 from Ahmedabad, where he was posted as Assistant General Manager for Rajasthan and Gujarat, Hindustan Machinery Tools Ltd., he came to know that Smt. Renuka was raising un-authorised construction over his said plot without obtaining the requisite permission from the Authority, that on 10.9.1992 he lodged a complaint in that behalf with the Authority but since no action was taken by the Authority in the matter despite repeated notices and reminders the petitioner was compelled to file the complaint. It was further alleged that though the learned Magistrate heard both the parties on such complaint yet he ordered for abatement thereof on the ground that during the pendency of petitioner's complaint, the Authority had already filed a complaint in his Court against Smt. Renuka and cognizance of the offences under sections 31(1) & 32 of the Act had also been taken in that case. By the present petition the petitioner has sought revival of his complaint before the learned Magistrate as, in his opinion, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 21.9.1993 is invalid in law and violates the very scheme and object behind the Act.
(2.) Mr. G.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the proceedings instituted and commenced upon the complaint of the petitioner could have abated only when the cause of action for such proceedings had been removed by the Authority within a reasonable time after the giving of a notice of the proceedings to it by the Court of the learned Magistrate. It was submitted that mere filing of complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate against Smt. Renuka did not absolve the Authority of its duty and obligation under the Act.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition mainly on the ground that the impugned order was revisable under section 397 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. was misconceived and hence not maintainable.;