27


HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

                        M.Cr.C. No.7050/2017
     (Smt. Sha Bhatia & Anr. vs. Madhya Pradsh Pollution Board)

Indore dated 18.12.2017

        Shri Amit Munde, learned counsel for the petitioners.
        Smt.   Preeti   Waghmare,     learned   counsel   for   the
respondent.

They are heard.

By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973, the petitioner is praying for quashment of complaint and criminal case bearing No.80/12 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Dhar.

2. The facts of the case are that the non-applicant Pollution Control Board filed a complaint on 9/12/2011 against the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons namely M/s Jaideep Glass Works Pithampur and its Managing Director - Mr. Vinay Agrawal under Sections 25, 26 and 24 of the Water Pollution Act, 1974. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioners were the Director of the M/s Jaideep Glass Work Pvt. Ltd.(Spinning Unit-2) Plot No.1 Sector-3, Industrial Area Kheda, Pithanpur, District - Dhar(M.P.) and in the year 2010 the Company was granted permission by the Board to establish a unit for production of cotton and synthetic yarn at Industrial Area Kheda, Pithampur District - Dhar vide letter dated 18/03/2008 bearing No.2123.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the company was granted permission for establishing the unit on certain conditions and the permission was granted on this pretext that the company will not use any new outlet or new discharge of 27 sewage. It was further stated in the letter that the company will not manufacture anything without prior consent of the Board and they will establish the treatment plant within one month from the date of issuance of letter dated 18/03/2008.

4. On 30/04/2010, the Board (respondent) issued a show cause notice under Section 33-A of Water Pollution Act, 1974 and under Section 31-A of Air Pollution Act, 1981 stating that since the company has started production without complying the conditions as mentioned in letter dated 18/03/2008. The company was also directed to submit the requisite information, but the company did not comply hence on 9/07/2010, the permission was cancelled.

5. It is also alleged that on 14/06/2010 at the time of inspection of the said unit it was found that the company did not take any step for discharge of sewage and no sewage treatment plant was established. On the basis of said allegation, a complaint under Sections 25 and 44 of the Water Pollution Act, 1974 has been filed against the company and against the petitioners as well as against Vinay Agrawal who is the Managing Director of the Company.

6. On 20/07/2011, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar has taken cognizance under Sections 25 and 44 of the Water Pollution Act, 1974 against the accused person and registered the case as Criminal Case No.80/12.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not the Director nor incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of alleged offence. The prosecution did not establish the fact that from the date of permission by the Board i.e. from 18/03/2008 till 09/07/2010 when the permission was withdrawn 27 by the Board, the petitioners were related in any manner with the Company.

8. As per the report of the Registrar of the Company, the petitioners were not the Directors of the said Company during the period of alleged offence. The petitioners were the Directors of the said Company from 31/10/1980 till 16/12/1982 and they resigned the Company on 16/12/1982.

9. No material has been filed by the petitioners or certified copy of the Registrar of the Company has been filed to prove that the petitioners were not the Directors of the said Company during the alleged offence.

10. As per reply of the M.P. Pollution Control Board, on 30/06/2010, the M.P. Pollution Control Board sent a letter to the petitioners through Industry for submitting required information and even explain that after fulfillment of required information they can consider the industry. After granting number of opportunities, the application has been rejected on 9/07/2010.

11. The petitioners started the operation of the industry without valid consent and, therefore, the complaint has been filed against them. At this stage, on the basis of Annexure-P/2 it cannot be said that during relevant period the petitioners were not the Directors of the Company or in any way involved in the alleged offence. The petitioners may raise all these pleas before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class where proceedings is going on. On the basis of complaint filed by the M.P. Pollution Control Board, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioners.

12. Inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of 27 wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case.

13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute.

14. Plenitude of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by itself makes it obligatory for the Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. Width and nature of power itself demands that its exercise is only in cases where this Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of clear view that continuance of prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C; though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself.

15. Considering the aforesaid and so also looking to the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, no case for quashment of complaint and criminal case bearing No.80/12 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Dhar, as prayed by the petitioners under the proceeding of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is made out.

16. With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C. No.7050/2017 is dismissed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge 27 pn/ Preetha Nair 2017.12.22 12:19:28 +05'30'