Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

No Prima Facie Case Against Petitioners: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR on Unauthorized Construction

04 January 2025 1:42 PM

By: sayum


High Court nullifies proceedings under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, citing insufficient evidence and lack of prima facie case. The Calcutta High Court has quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings against petitioners accused of unauthorized construction under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Justice Rai Chattopadhyay ruled that the FIR did not disclose a prima facie case and lacked substantial supporting materials, rendering the proceedings an abuse of the judicial process.

The case revolves around the unauthorized construction at 109/3, Collin Street, Kolkata. The petitioners, Mr. Syed Nazmul Hossain and others, who are joint owners of the building, entered into a development agreement with M/s. Rani Constructions in 2004. Allegations arose concerning unauthorized construction on the 6th floor, purportedly endangering the lives and properties of nearby residents. Initially, an FIR (No. 166 of 2009) was lodged, leading to a charge sheet against the developers. A subsequent FIR (No. 226 of 2015) implicated the petitioners, despite their claim that the responsibility lay with the developers as per their agreement.

The Court scrutinized the evidence presented, particularly the engineers’ report forming the basis of the FIR. Justice Chattopadhyay noted, “The engineers’ report dated May 26, 2015, lacks detailed supporting material. It is insufficient to substantiate the claims of danger to human life and property.”

The petitioners contended that the second FIR was based on the same cause of action as the first, from which they had been exonerated. The Court found merit in this argument, emphasizing the principle that multiple FIRs for the same offense are generally untenable.

Justice Chattopadhyay highlighted that, according to the development agreement, the responsibility for construction compliance lay with the developers. The Court found no prima facie evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged unauthorized construction post-handover to them by the developers.

The judgment delved into the application of Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The provision imposes criminal liability for contraventions that endanger human life or property. The Court reiterated that a mere breach of building regulations, without evidence of actual or potential danger, does not meet the threshold for invoking criminal liability under Section 401A.

Justice Chattopadhyay remarked, “The complaint must disclose a prima facie case against the accused persons, or else, the same may not be considered to have established on record a case against the accused persons.” The ruling underscored the necessity of complaints being substantiated with objective evidence to proceed to trial.

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to quash the FIR underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that criminal proceedings are not pursued without adequate evidence. This judgment reinforces the need for detailed and substantial supporting materials in complaints under Section 401A, preventing misuse of legal provisions. The ruling serves as a critical precedent for future cases involving unauthorized construction and the responsibilities delineated in development agreements.

Date of Decision: 14th May 2023

Latest Legal News