Calcutta High Court: In a revision application seeking the quashing of legal proceedings related to the complaint alleging the unauthorized construction of a rooftop structure on a five-storied building located in violation of Section 401-A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (KMC Act), a single-judge bench comprising of Bibhas Ranjan De, J., held that the complaint and the evidence collected did not disclose the commission of any offense or make out a case against the petitioner concerning unauthorized construction.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter the Assistant Engineer (civil) of Building KMC, filed a complaint accusing the petitioner and others of constructing an unauthorized rooftop structure on a five-storied building. This structure was deemed to endanger human life, water supply, drainage, sewerage, road traffic, and posed a fire hazard, as no permission had been obtained from KMC before its construction. Based on the complaint a charge sheet was filed and the proceedings are pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, outside the Metropolitan area. The petitioner filed a revision application before this Court to quash the legal proceedings related to the charge sheet.
Moot Point
-
Whether the petitioner was involved in unauthorized construction as alleged under Section 401-A of the KMC Act?
-
Whether the deeds of conveyance executed by the petitioner and the owner of the premises, indicating the sale of roof rights to two different individuals, prove the absence of any unauthorized construction?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the deeds of conveyance demonstrated that the entire roof right was sold without any mention of any structure. It was argued that this established that the petitioner was not involved in unauthorized construction
The KMC argued that the complaint was based on an inspection report conducted by a Sub Assistant Engineer (c)/Building attached to KMC, who identified unauthorized construction on the rooftop.
The State relied on materials collected during the investigation, contending that the deeds of conveyance regarding the roof right, as mentioned by the petitioner, were executed in violation of an order issued by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
Court’s Assessment
The Court found that there was no evidence of the petitioner being involved in unauthorized construction. Deeds collected during the investigation clearly showed that the petitioner and the owner had sold the entire roof rights without any associated construction. Therefore, the Court concluded that the proceedings related to the charge sheet should be quashed for the petitioner.
“Where allegation made in the complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the power under Section 482 of CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
The Court clarified that the case did not involve any violation of the order issued by the Dispute Redressal Commission. If such violations occurred, the parties were free to take appropriate action before the commission.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed revision application filed by the petitioner and the proceedings connected to charge sheet no were quashed for the petitioner. Any interim orders, if in effect, were also vacated.
[Anil Kumar Banerjee v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3731, order dated 17-10-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Bibhas Ranjan De
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Debapratim Guha, Ms. Anchita Sarkar, Counsel for the Petitioner
Goutam Dinda, Mr. A.S. Chatterjee, Counsel for the KMC
Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala, Mr. Patick Bose, Counsel for the State
