Vague Allegations Unsupported by Evidence Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Sections 354 and 506 IPC Acquittal in Primary Offence Nullifies Proclaimed Offender Status and Section 174A IPC Proceedings: Supreme Court Merits of the Case Should Not Be Prejudged at Bail Stage: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Bail Order in MCOCA Case Quashing | Cognizance Without Compliance to Section 195 CrPC Vitiates Entire Proceedings: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Suspicious Circumstances Must Be Resolved Even After Valid Execution of Will: Supreme Court Procedural Rules Cannot Obstruct Access to Justice: Litigants Should Not Suffer for Counsel's Negligence: Supreme Court Restores Suit Dismissed Ex-Parte Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Reappreciate Evidence or Reverse Well-Founded Factual Findings: Supreme Court IBC | Corporate Guarantee Under Hypothecation Deeds Qualifies as Financial Debt: Supreme Court Beneficial Legislation Must Be Interpreted Purposively to Protect the Rights of Senior Citizens: Supreme Court Quashes Gift Deed Executed by Senior Citizen Attempt Must Go Beyond Preparation: Rajasthan High Court Alters Conviction in 33-Year-Old Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Aided Institution to Pay Leave Encashment to Retired Employees Kerala High Court Allows Review Petitions in Custody Dispute, Recalls Earlier Judgment Granting Interim Custody to Father Copyright in Sound Recordings Must Be Protected: Delhi High Court in Interim Injunction Grounds of Arrest Must Be Served in Writing, But Remand Report Can Satisfy Constitutional Mandate: Andhra Pradesh High Court

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

Similar News