SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.

Criminal Appeals Nos. 171-72 of 2001. (Arising out of SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 2618-19 of 2000) D/d. 12.2.2001.

Meera Shripat Admane - Appellant

Versus

Chief Officer, Sangamner Municipal Council & others - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 136 - Indian Penal Code, Section 166 - Encroachment on Municipal Land - Complaint - Allegation that though one M had encroached upon land adjoining the land belonging to the complainant and had started construction in a manner so as to cause danger, municipal authorities had not taken any steps thus, a case under Section 166 Indian Penal Code was made out - Complaint dismissed in 1992 for non-appearance - Application for restoration dismissed and revision petition was found to be not maintainable - Leave sought in 1995 - Explanation for non-appearance and delay - Counsel for Municipal Corporation and M submitting that 8 years having elapsed in the meantime, it would not be in the interest of justice to remit the matter back to the Magistrate for retrial - Held, in view of the allegation made in the complaint and the circumstances of the case, complaint case should be remitted to the Magistrate.

[Para 3]

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Name of Respondents 2 and 3 be deleted.

3. Heard Mr A.K. Sanghi, who had been appearing in the Court as amicus curiae and learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation as well as one Dr R.K. Malpani. This appeal is by the complainant whose complaint stood dismissed on 14-7-1992 for her non-appearance and the accused persons were acquitted. Against the said order, the complainant initially filed an application for restoration and that restoration application having been dismissed, she moved by filing a revision. When it was pointed out that revision would not be maintainable then she approached for grant of leave in the year 1995. The High Court, however, not being impressed by the reasons for the delay in moving the Court and having dismissed the same, she has approached this Court. The sole grievance of the complainant is that on the date the complaint stood dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant, she was observing 'shraddha', religious rituals on account of which she could not attend the Court and then for the delay in question, she makes a complaint that she was ill-advised to move for restoration and a revision and, therefore, in fitness of things, the matter should be remitted back to the Magistrate for continuing the complaint proceedings. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation as well as for Dr Malpani contended that 8 long years have elapsed in the meantime and it would not be in the interest of justice to remit the matter back to the Magistrate for retrial. The allegation is that though Dr Malpani has encroached upon the municipal land adjoining the land belonging to the complainant and has started a construction in a manner so as to cause danger, the municipal authorities have not taken any steps and as such a case under Section 166 Indian Penal Code is made out. In view of the allegation in the case and in view of the circumstances indicated above, we are inclined to remit the complaint case to the Magistrate for redisposal. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allow these appeals and direct the Magistrate concerned to dispose of the complaint case at an early date. The complainant is directed to present herself before the Magistrate concerned on 19-3-2001, whereafter the Magistrate will fix the hearing of the case and dispose of it in accordance with law. The accused persons, who are present before us, are directed to appear before the Magistrate on the same day.

Appeals allowed.