IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF JULY 2010

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. r<usv:ARAsw;:.«:s-ref.'__'_5f 

CRIMINAL PETITION No.769/2o1_oV1"-~..,.  O" A

BETWEEN:

1. M/s. Athashri -- Paranjape
Schemes Bangalore ._ 
Flat No.1 Monalisa Apartments,  
100 feet Road, 6"' Main, 
2"" Stage, Indiranagar, V
Bangalore--56O 038.

2. Mr. Shashank Par.a'nj_ape,-""""':1 A

S/o Sri. Pt:rs.:s'hott_am7fPara'::j.ga;3e, _ H

Partner, 't-at/s--. At.hasl'a'-rt'-A _Pa.ra'n._1'a;)'e

Schemes Bangalore   

FEat No.1 Mo'-nalisa Apartrnergtts,

100 feet _VRoad,"€;V_"" iV.i,a'--in,"v2"'"J"' Stage, Indiranagar,
__Bangal_ore--'56O 038...' V  Petitioners

(By  -l\4l:§"~--l,<.athavE, Advocate)

 Awe} ~. 

 The Karnataka State Pollution

-,.,'_j':Co_nt.rol E5oa':',d.,.'1- Regional Office, Bangalore East,

4. ,,,'22";iFtoVt;ti_, Public Utlfiity Building,
  M--.{3';Ro.a,d,fBangalore 560 001.

.'=.._VRe.o-resented by its

ED'?'.Qtit_y§ Environmental Officer.  Respondent

EElrv.._i'(B\.[Sri. EIR. Dlwakar, Advocate for M/s. Lex Eustice, Advocates) é/.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioners rjrayihg that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceetii'iigs in C.C.No.4026/2009 U3ki9MxCLC.849/2006) pending on fl3giHe\_ of Additional CMM, Bangalore Rural District. Th$ CflnfinalPefifion m connng on ay.;daiss¢n the day the Court made the following : V '_ oRoeeK iins cnnnnai Pefihon is ska} under secuon 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings in CLC.NCL4026/2009'Umd-NofiLCE849?fiQQ6ibendmg ontheffle of the Additional:iAC'ii.i.-ef.uV_lrl«etr'o:;5'ol_ita_n_' Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District.

2. the 'factslof the case as stated in the complaint are as A u "r'i"ci e rif * .. gg i'h'ei."_'ig:o'iri'olairiant is the Karnataka State Pollution Control i§oa.rd_reij'resented by its Envirorimentai Officer. It is in-.._.'the" cornpiaint that complainant is a body corporate V"of'1.,__co.n'stitu'ted under Section--4 of the Water (Prevention arid £9/.

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 by the Government of i<arna'taka. The powers and function of the compiainant --

establishing a Comprehensive State Wide Programme: _ if protect and enhance the quaiity ft'he._VVeni/iro_'n'men't"hin Karnataka. To impiement this ma4n.da't._e, pol,l.igfti'o'n" co,n'tvroVl'=, legisiation makes the complain'ain?t'i» respo.n_si'hi'e toadopt environmental standards a.nd~~..'_reg_u'l'aVt'ions:'fo._r. thefvvétate. The object of the complaint is to environment

-- air, water and ia4r3~ti'u,p:fti-n in exercise of the powers under i--E":5nv'i'if.ori'n"ient (Protection) Act-- 1986, the issued a notification authorizing Officer to fiie the complaint_w_Vho has tjee.n','«dei_eda.ted powers under sections 20, 21 af'n'd«.__fl3 }t'hc:'-ii\/vat.',3F r\'tt'ar-rd' sectionw24 of the Air Act. in the complaint that the Ministry of 9"»._..Environ'njentV_a'ii"d_*iV.Forest, Government of india has issued .tf_j:Ern_vii:orimentimpact Assessment Notification 1994 in exercise of 9:~--'.:Vth.eV"ipo~w>er';: conferred under the provisions of -the Environment . 'V:,"l(-Protecition) Act. The said notification has been amended time to ;L/' time and an amendment was aiso made on 7"" Juéy 2OG.4";~-_ As per the said notification, there are 32 industries/activities which require Environment CEea:ravn'e:iei"from V' the Ministry of Environment and Foresthbieifore 'tyak.inr;j:"u.pVof:Viany construction work, preliminary or 0theFWi5__€:"E'.&iatii'!Q_"_CO. se~ttingé"~Lip'--.V of new project or expansion/mo"dt,e'r-nization._Vo.ff'.=thVé; ieixistingii project. Under Entry , niotification, the construction activities have taking up any construction the deveioper is required to obtain Certificate from the Ministry of ihéoivivernment of India.

2.3 Itis 'VaiieoedV,w_i'ri':.ijttie"'cornptaint that the accused persons have tai<e;n.,uAp con_structio.n residentiai cornpiex/apartments coV.nsi;.,%§i'n'i34i:ofi.j1~18'..fF\ats'ViAn""thAe name of the Accused No.1 without obtaii-hing Vei:v:i'ronm"en_tai ciearance certificate from the Ministry of ii'Ai""Evnvironr'n.ent_ancEi"jE*orest, Government of India. itifs further stated in the complaint that when the W_"'=co'njipi,ain_ant came to know with regard to the construction he made inspection of the site on 5.4.2006 and drawn 2%!' a mahazar. Thereafter on 10.4.2006 directions were given not to go ahead with the construction activities on the propoVse'_dc3.i.te. Thereafter the accused has fiied an appiication for_;"Cor;'se'r_1t5p'n~. 12.4.2006. In pursuance of the said appiicatéoinytvsi.t:e.viias-., inspected on 17.6.2006 and found that thefcongshtrdctéi"on-...gggvvorié' had stopped due to the writ}petition_!'i3efore"u'%'this Thereafter on 27.6.2006 the site vva's._"i'r'.specte-d found that the accused did not obtain the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The.rea_fter._these"vfac:ts3were brought to the knowledge of 1iead_bgffice"xwh'icihtauthiorized the Regional officer of thetcwonipiiawinaijt t_o'ri.:nitiateVV'c'riminaé action against the accused.

2.5 ,--1ftg is fuaisio 'stated the compiaint that in order to afttractp the 3-."am"ended fvnotfifécation dated 7"' Juiy 2004, the foEE'owE:n.g-'ha-3:\.i.been fixed viz., (a) If the discharge of the "evrriueritf rhorefthfan 5o,ooo iiters per day or (9) if the totai cost more than $315.50 crores, or (C) if the facéiity is tohost more than 1,000 people, or (d) if the area is more hectares.

2.6 It is further stated in the compiaint that the"~agc~cu'sed persons have taken up construction of 206 reside_s-itiialéiiiagjtsf for aged people in sy. i\los.19/2, 146/4 an;ci....1'48/2"n'e"ar'_';i7a'tte'_iidt;.gV,'* Agrahara viilage, White field road, K.R:;~:.'Pui'ranii l~'iob§~i,:"i3aiig--al'o1r.e East taluk, Bangalore and 1,030 tieooie are :e;:_o_e'cted._"t-o...occupy=.l' the fiats at an average of S ;;_3ersonASyi..i:5§r:__fl'a_yti :f._urtvEnéer stated that consumption of water -iitres per day on an average consumpti-oyn head and is expected to of waste water (sewage) notification dated 7.7.2604 of Environment and Forest, Government of"-India', discharges more than 50,000 litres they should obtain Environmental :.C"i~c--:§arAa:n«c:xe:_ before undertaking construction activity. TherlefoVre__itV"i'sa"a»iieg.ed that without obtaining the Environmental Ciearance' C€"lftif'i'C".Elt€, commencing the construction activity is an l3oth the accused have violated the said notification thus liabie to be punished under sectionw1S of the E"nvi'ro'nment (Protection) Act, 1986. Accused No.2 is working £6/,, as the Managing Director to the Accused No.1. Accused No.2 is in--charge of all affairs pertaining to constructionVuo'f_E*1V18 residential flats at the project. Subsequently;""'on.e_~--.'._rn::.r'e«_ apptication was submitted adding 88 flats in the_.secoind'.. the said project. Noticing these vioiati:.ons.,-..thieuCgh':a.i'r'rna'n'"offthe complainant -- Board has authorized-.the E'nvi'ronmen'it'ai.Qfficgertog"A. present the comptaint against thelvlviaccused having atleged to have committed;::._._t:ne' "under the provisions of Section:_1S of'...th:e:.En-vAir:onn1en't.L_*fi5rotection) Act, 1986. 4Hf'fi5i..fa hpfi1ficff"";

2.7 is.aiso"'ste..ted_"i'n,:'t'h._e'comptaint that the act of the accused also congstitut'es""'ico»-ntinued offence' for the reason that though corniplainantibrought to the knowledge of the accused .no'ti.f:icatio.ndated 7.7.2004 with regard to Environment Clear'an:ceg to be obtained from the Ministry of Eng;ronrn'ent~~.fén'd".VForest, Government of India, the accused did the same. Ail these facts discloses that the act of acculsed in continuing to put up construction without o"'ota'in'ilng the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) and Z 3/ Consent for Establishment (CFE) is intentional and deliberateand hence the act of the accused attracts 'continued offenVc.e_Jf..H"* 2.8 Therefore the complainant prays for takinrigicojgniiancie for the offence under sectéon--19 of the:'ElnVvi'ronrriei1.t.rV}'a(otce'cti'on'} Act, 1986 and further to punish the accused pe;yso'nvs'~ offence committed under sectio'n.,.5T':ri5 of*~theyf'.=En*,{EroVn'mentVV (Protection) Act, 1986. s _4 V

3. Witnesses stated in.t'ne 'corn';:la"i'--ntt'~ are Regional Officer and Assistant Environmental.rO'ffic'erV.'~ aijmfalrrre working at the Karnataka State 'Pollutie_n"Cyo'ritr'o~!._ Board.

4. I_h_ave h'ea_rdr.thell'ea'r'ned counsel for the petitioners as vyell"vas learned couns'e'l"for the respondent. co.uri..sel for the petitioners su bméts as under: 5l..t.__V the notification dated 27"" January 1994 "--ri.-1'i;jrqd'L»ceTd at.r__}'xnnexure--f\/E2 does not apply to the project in View of the 7" July 2004 notification produced at "rul.Di'nne_><_t%tre--¥'/31. He further submits that eventhough he had fifed 10

(g) any construction project falling under Entry~3V_:1-.._4yi'~.. of Schedule I inciuding "new towrrs'iii'os,'__;' industrial townships, settlement c'oE:oi*.ijes,i' % commercial compiexes, Vhotei hospitais and office coftapiexies persons or below or.i'd_ischa'rgV'i"ng Se=vv'%aVge_i'of'_j'; 3 50,000 iitres Der daY""i«i.o"r'i.beiow._o'r'iii;¢itiE*i:'an investment of Rs...SO.QO--cro_i*es*o.r beiéovvj' 5.3 Learned counsef_f_Qt'_At.he"._'i§etit'i'o:h'e~:ts»-.iiaiso invited the attention of this decision of this Court in vvpf. vi\io.18904/2006, W.P.

No.¢i1OO/Zooiaflc/:Ai}\;' of on 27"' November 2009. W.P. i\io.4100/2008 were filed by one Sri 50.18904/2006 was fiied by the ';Jg_titi'0ner he2?ein:V%'vig., M/smiDaran}ape Schemes, Bangaiore. 5/i««._ L€__~*a'rne'd counsei for the petitioners submits that in ""-:i,?\I".'P;"'i\§0b.}»<11t)'t'}/'.2008 the Division Eench of this Court has raised A"«mthe.Foiiowiirig points for consideration: ax 11

1. Whether the Construction Company had the statutory right for seeking review of the earlier order of the board under Section 25(7) of the wat.e't_"g_ (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,

2. Whether the Pollution Control Board.V__ha.s % Dower to review its order of refu~sa'i to favour of the Construction Company if it A

3. Whether the review order is pasised' by t,:1e' in compliance with the provisi'os»n:sl»of Sectio'ni¥T§:i5(.'?';) the Water (Prevention and Cio'ritr:oi of._Pollutio'n)~"/Sict, 1974 and in compliancelliof natural Justice ? Q 1 »

4. Whether in favour of the Construictiony the Poliutioh Control Board and"w:het.h'erA'.thAe.re is proper delegation of .__the 'ABoa--..r.duin favour of the Chairman for P l:'E'\.I'l:vel.'\,{VlTi"iAg its-earlier order of rejection for issuing CFE l'x"The Divi's.i_onv___Berit:h of this Court has answered the above point x{1_) to..--:(4) in W.P. §\lo,-4100/2008 in favour of the Company and held that Consent for Establishment {X 12 (CFE) is rightly granted by the Chairman of the Pollution Cointrol Board by reviewing its eariier order.

5.5 Learned counsel for the petitioners the attention of this Court to point No.4 raisedjiéfovrlco'nAs*id:e*ra~tiLor§_Ain WP. No.936/2006, which reads asy.~u_nder':'--«y""i-- "4. Whether the cornmencen'ierit"iof the" clolristfructiion of the building upon th--e_piot_.ii"1"q.i.iest'i-o.n oral' the basis of the sanctioned plain:7a.nd:L';iV:e.nc'eVfjisCsiued by the CMC, ason that_ date,A...Ci¢%Ei:--i.w'as by the Karnataka Po=llutio».ri "'C:on.t'i=ol..fBoard and therefore"rCo.n'St'rU:ct;ion"'oVf"the b'u'i'ld'iVng is illegal ? The DivisionVCE.'>eri.ch has answered the above Doint No.4 in W.VP._v 936a/'20_O6_i'n r:avou} of the Construction Company. LeVarne:d'«-..counsel for the petitioners also invited the attenti.on'.__o«i' to point No.3 raised for consideration in E\lo.'i"89€3{1/2{)"'O6, which reads as under: 't'_A"v3_._"Whether the Construction Companyis entitled for the reiiefs as grayed in the writ getition ?

fir 13 The Division Bench of this Court has held that point No.3 No.18904/O6 is whoiiy unnecessary and disposed petition.

5.7 In the circumstances, iéarneds counsenpiv petitioners prays for quashino--..,rth_e p"roceeoVin:gs~.."'i'n No.4€)26/2009 (oid c.c. mo.349/2oo--e.j"_'pei~-i.ci_ing onvt.he~'§file of the Additionai Chief Metropolitan_" F~ia.§;ii:stratev;».:L'Bangalore Rurai District.

6. Learn'ed.'§CitI'n:s:e.! reS'Do.ndent submits as under: 6.1 me by this Court in WP.

No.936/2ooe diam i vii:_i2.ir..pi§io:.l:;1oo/zoos had no bearing or :_r'eE~eyAanc'e'§'«:.if?_---$0._farV a's't.i<1.e«'present criminal petition fiied under seVcti'on§ii'82"of'thexCode of Criminai Procedure is concerned. counse: for the respondent has invited the "--'i.-1'i.attentAioTn oifvthis Court to paragraph-28 of the Crirninai Petition wh.er--ein..itn.--'is stated as under:

'$1.:

14 "28. That the petitioners have not filed any application, suit or petition before any Court~,"'--._ Tribunal or any Forum in respect of the prese'i*.»tf"-«._"'._ cause of action. The petitioners further decla-.?_:e.'t'hé.'t~h~.,. *' they have no alternative efficacious remed,y..thanVtA-he._ one under Section--482 of thefilfolde ._ of Crirni.r_laVl'"7 Procedure"

Learned counsel for the respond-evnt.V_hsubmits'ajboven averrnents made in the Criminal:iPetitvi-on«.._cleatii,«.._i.ncli§cate that the petitioners have not app'r'olat:~hedV this.1VClou.rt'~with clean hands and he has suppressed the facts'.

6.3 Lean?ied.Vvc'o.a;iin:sei_"fos:r"'*ith'e"l respondent further submits that this is not'a___filt_ca'se'to e>:{"esrcise the inherent power to quash the crime:es'pecially»...yyVhen: the plea of the accused has been recorded_VanVd'.con*i';:>l_ainarit witness No.1 has been examined in full and-cionipl"aii~nap'ts witness No.2 has been examined in part. the trial'."has"--Vbe'e"n stalled because the petitioners did not choose

-._to "cr,oss«-ehxamine the complainant witnesses. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that Vlii«:..T"*th:ough the petitioners relied on the order passed by the Division fil.

15 Bench of this Court in W.P. 936/2006, WP. 18904/2006:,"-W.?. 4100/2008 CAN ccc 231/2008 dsposed ofon 27.11,2oo§fiiis not proper for this Court to express any opinion petition on the order made by the Divisivonh B'en._ch_of't«h:i"s.Co'urt int thesanirnamers. Therehefsoughtin\N P No.18§p4/zooe Was*t to quash the proceedings in C.C. 'NroVV:849/200$"'pendVi;jgVmbefore if the tnai Court But the Dhflfion Bench of ups court has not quashed the proceedings in Therefore the iearned counsei for3'~vt'ri<?i,:5etiti__one-rs: criminai petition for the same proceedings in CC.

849/2oo6.:f V} 4_ '4,n p

7. I haveucarefuiiy._perLi'seciv.tfie rnateriais piaced befor-e me. It is aiieged bythex"c_o'i*ri"piaifirrant that the accused have not o.b.tained.i«1Envi'ronmentagiVCiearance Certificate as required under i\AiVotVif»ic:at~ion d_ate'd,i:"?."_f Euiy 2004 (Anne><ure~M1). Therefore they have 'i=io'i--a'ted'V'Sec'tio'n~15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, V'7f_19'86. n1t_is"'the contention of the iearned counsei for the 'i.:Vp'et1:t.io'raers that the project of the petitioners does not come purview of the notification dated 27.31.1994 a/_ 16 {Anne><ure~M2) by virtue of the amendment carried out to paragraph-3 of the said notification by notificationig':'d.ated 7.7.2004 (Annexure~i\/E1). Though it is the learned counsei for the petitioners that the_.Vpro~;i.ectA_:'~o.f petitioners does not come under the purview «offithie 'n_.o'tific;atViVo_n':; this Court exercising the inherent _powei-ihunder the Code of Criminai Procedure, can'in..o't' emba"i~E.r:_ 'upon an enquiry as to whether the project' :::(").fV.*.thE?VA'pe't§"ti:'Qn'%%'S. comesuwunder the purview of the said notificationCorggriogtt

8. In this C_on{.:jac'tion'-,g "refe're¢n'eé»._m'ay be made to a decision ofVV'ti1e-Hontbiie-.:gSup"re:m--e'Court reiied upon by iearned counsei for the the case of U.P. POLLUTEON coi\iTRQ.;.a"o'ARo .'°\/s._p_if2_.i BHUPENDRA KUMAR MODI reported in:_V(2O;U'9_)VI»; wherein the i-ion'bie Supreme Court has * iheid 1.aSCi3--n'd -. V V jicrinfieéi Procedure Code, 1973 -- 3482 W Quashing dftcriminai complaint -- Exercise of inherent power -- _ Aigijproach A Cautious approach, but no fixed ruie -- it " "Questions of fact can be gone into when no offence is disciosed, but meticulous anaiysis at the stage is 31/ 17 not necessary -- It should be exercised to do reai and substantiai justice and if any attempt is made to; abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, Court has power to prevent abuse."

9. Section 2(a) of the Code of Criminal F?r.o.C,e:'dure.::d€fine's--«, 'complaint'. 'Complaint' means any afiegation rna"d.e*oraw..l'iy_otin writing to a Magistrate with a view' to hisltiaidng a»ct'i'Vo,h.l:undeT;r Code, that some person, whether'al€rioVwn 'o--r,_:lunkn'pwn, has committed an offence, but-..__"t:i~:>es'_ npt,l'"i'n_c»l.,u'd.e_ a poiice report. Exptanation in the Section 2{.d.}.:.i_n.dicVate,s 't'i:at"':ai,g,~report made by a police officer in"a*-izvase7.wi:ich..,--_'discloses, after investigation, the commission ofa"nori:cogh_i2'a~hli'e«offence shail be deemed to be a complaint,-and t4h"e._:Vpoiice officer by whom such report is made be'it._d'ee'ine'd..,to bethle comptainaht. In this case, the comrplVa.i_nar:t,T*ha's%'fpriesented a complaint before the iearned 1"Magistra-t_e. Magistrate has taken cognizance of it and '":iJsu_rn'mons were issued to the accused and plea of the accused

-.,alsof.-'recorded and complainant witness No.1 was fuily examined and complainant witness No.2 was partly examined. lli'----.V,AVA"AtVVthis stage, this Crirninai Petition is filed. Every tiny fact need §,;J,, 18 not be pleaded in the complaint. Further compiaint in a criminal case is not an encyciopaedia. It is not necessary to ment'io4fi.s.t'ii.e section of the Act under which the offence has It is not sufficient to repeat the words c.'f'Ath'e'sec.tion which the offence has been committed, but thel1i'«a_cts covnstimtiri-g"t,he._ offence must be alteged. Oniy alle'gs:a't--ions orally' or in writing, to a Magistrate"wit»li'ma"lyiew-.tAo iii's"i:ai<"iVng action under the Code can be termed 'There must be a prayer in the comp..ia'5irtt:p:-for the allegation of facts which the instant case, the aiiegatiori they did not obtain consent fromthe and they commenced the constructiori actiyity withoiit obtaining corisent from the Centrai i'if3oy'er«nrnent»--."and..thereb'y""they are aileged to have committed an offence_f~iinder._seVct.iVoin-15 of the Environment (Protection) Act. 1""Environm_entai~ tacit-rlideais with poiliition (whether of air or water), "'nconltarngination' of land, protection of flora and fauna (especially in rei:b't--i,On._ the food chain), disposal of waste and general nu.iSa_i°iCe. This being the position, Criminal law relating to L'-«_A"er1yironment is to be administered in substance than in form. 19 Adhering too much to technicalities will obscure or defe.ate._the very purpose and object of criminal law especially considering the allegation made in the complaint.,uperta.i:ningZto». environmental law.

10. It is well settled law that"--vinhierent Court to quash the criminal proc'e.edin'g"s""iia's ut"o.._'be Aevxerciésed with caution and circurnspection rarest of rare cases. But in a'lrllei'glé\'ti.Q§if_i_V:Vyftnade against the accused is thzeir-lconstruction activity without obtainingTslfinlvhiértégiimental 'CAle'a"r'aVnce Certificate from the Ministry of and thereby there is a contravention Environment (Protection) Act. T_.h'e~._yallegatiog_nV: madea"ini----~--t-.«'e complaint constitutes an offence allegeciea:g'iaiAnsti'theripe-titioner. It is the contention of the learned iii»-..__counse.l'forlthe.rve.sp.ondent that eventhough the petitioners have to quash the crime in the writ petition, petitioners have 'finoit nn'entio~ned the same in this criminal petition. Therefore it V" it-fi'is.__the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that Q»the;=petii:ioners have not come before this Court with clean K if 20 hands. There is a force in the submission of the iearned counsel for the respondent. The Division Bench o.{_thiVs-u4.C.o'u.rt has also not quashed the crime eventhough the reliefiwasi by the petitioners to quash the crime.' "F<eco.rd subsequently accused have obtained :E'[}\./:l'ffQ.l'l{31E.'.l'"l_'C.<3l' ».C'iea,ra--nqce.u Certificate, but this will not absolxv/e~v..t:h"em from the Bot at' the most this factor mayrlqe co.:i'side'i'ed'i...for aw'a*rd'ing lesser sentence in case if the criminai.vV'c:as_e"'~--endsi__ in conviction. Therefore in my vi,ev.i,&' "i:-his th.e"'~r*_c_ir_est"jof rare case where this Court can exercji'se"'th..e iioh-«e_r'e«r}_t"'4power'to quash the criminal proceedings. I'nr-dry §i.i4ev.i,"'t_iji~3 Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and thesame' dismissed.

the resiiit, .IV__p__a::s the following:

ORDER Crii*nlihal'c!-"5etitori is dismissed.

Sd/-3 FUDGE