HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSQARH AT BiLASPUR Cr.NS.P.No.686of2010 Appiicant j. Raji Reddy Sr. Generai Manager (Mines) S/o Shri J. Adi Rsddy M,(s Jayaswa! Neco 'ndustries Ltd., Viiiage - Banjikhoi, Tehsii-Ghargoda District- Raigarh (Chhaffisgarh) Respondents 2. 3. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Environment & Urban Deve!opmsnt And Chairman, Chhattisgarh Staie Environment Conservation Board Nanak Niwas, Civi! Lines Road, Raipur Chhattssgarh. Regronal Officer Chhattisgarh State Environment Conssrvation Board Kotra Road, Raigarh, C-hhattisgarh. Chief Judidai Chhattisaarh. gistrste, Raigarh, (Petition under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bisiVir..T.P.Sharma,4.) Present; Mr.Goutam Bhaduri wth Mr.Debashish Bharuka, counsei for the appiicant. Mr.Ratosh Kumar Jha, Dy.Govt.Advocate for respondent No.l/State. Mr.Pankaj Shrsvasiava, counsel for respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Psssed on 12*'' January, 2011) 1. By this petition undsr Seotion 482 of ttis Cr.P.C., the appiieant has chaiienged iegaiity and proprieiy of the order dated 2.7.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratgarh in Criminai Case No.856/2010. ^^" 2. As per petition, order impugned, copy of the somptaint anci other documents, {hs present appiicant is working as Senlor Gsnerai Manager in M/s Jayas\,i?ai Neco industries Limited. As per ciaim of the petitioner, h®has joinsd on 18.6.2010. M/s Jayaswai Neco industriss Ltd., was required to take consent for instailing any sstabiishment from State Board, Ws Jayaswal Neco industriss Ltd., has previousiy obtained consent from fhe State Board and thereafter, in ths yesr 2009-2010 they have extendsd their production iimit to the tune of 0,56 miiiion ton without obtaining consent reisting to such extensfon of his production, therefore, company i.e. M/s Jayaswai Neco industries Ltd. and ite Generai iwanagsr has committed the offsnce punishabis under Section ^i 44 and 47 ofths Water (Prsvention and Controi) Act, 1974, Sections 37 and 40 of fte Air (Prevention of Confro!) Act, 1981 and Sections 15 snd 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1S86 read with Ssction 34 ofthe I.P.C. 3. i have heard leamed counsef for the parties, perused the order impugnsd ana other documents fited on behaif <rf the appiicant. 4. Leamed counse! for the appiscant submits that ttie compiainant i.e. respondent No.2 js sitent sbout commission of offence and the act aftributed to the appiicant. !n order to prosecute She appiicant and for GontiRUJng ths crimina! proceeding the appiicant, compiainant i.e. respondent No.2 was under obligation to make aiiegation relating to the applicant and in ttie absenc®of any altegation, continuancs of crimms! compiaint against the appiicant wouici oniy be abuse of process of the Court. Leamed counsei farther submsts that the compiainant was undsr obligation to make ailegation that whsn the offencs has bsen committed and whether it te continuing offence. Leamsd counse! atso submite thai in the absence of aforesaid ailegation, registration of compisint and taking cognizance against the applicant is required to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Seamed Sfate counse! and Searned coun'sei for responcient No.2 oppose the petition and submit that the prssent appiicant is working as Senior Genera! Manager in Mi's Jayasv/a! Neco industriss LSd., he was responsibte for the activity of ths industry. industry has obtained pre',"ous consent befpre instaiiing the industry, ihereafter they have sxiended tkeir production in the year 2009-2010, but before extending such producKon they havs not obta'.ned consent from the State Board, therefore, they have viotetsd the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of ihe Water (Prevention and Contro!) Act, 1974 punishabie under Sections 44 and 47 ofthe aforesaid Act and vioiated the provisions of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention of Contro!) Act, 1981 punishabie under Section 37 and 40 of th®aforesaid Act. - 5. Powsr under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is exceptional in nature and should be used sparingiy. Whiie dealing with exercise of powsr undsr Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the mstter of M/s. Zandu Phar»naceuticaiWerks Ltd. and others v. iWd. Sharafui Haque and others the Supreme Court has hs!d thus, "8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of ihe Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the ruie. The Section cioes not confer any new powers on the High Court. it oniy saves the inherent powsr which th®Court possesssd bsfore the enactment AIR2005SC9 ^^ -3- of the Code. !t snvisages three cireumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to gh/s effeci to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to othenvise secure the ends of justice. it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any infiexibis ruie which would govern the exsreise of inherentjurisdiction........." 7. As per complaint, ths present appiicant is woiking as Senior Generai Manager in Mis Jayaswal Naco industries Ltd. M/s Jayaswal Neco industries Ltd., has obtained consent from the State Board and ihereafter, without obtaining consent for exiended production they have extended their production. Consent was given for definite production and v/Nhout consent for extended production, Ws Jayaswai Neco industries Lid., is not competsnt to extend ttieir capacity. Admittediy, this is continuing ofFence and present applteant is prima facie liabie for the commission of the offence aiong wVh industry. 8. On the basis of compiaint made by public servant vvhile rsgistering the compiaint, the Court beiow has not committed any iliegaiity warranting any interference in terms ofSection 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. 9. Consequentiy, ths petition is iiabie to be dismissed and it is here&y dismissed. Sd/- TP. Sharma judge