HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5098 of 2008 Date: July 29, 2010 Between: M/s. Deepu Block Flat Owners Welfare Association, Madinaguda,Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Authorized person A.V.S.S. Murthy. … Petitioner And 1. Asst. District Fire Officer, R.R. District, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5098 of 2008 ORDER: One M/s. Deepu Block Flat Owners Welfare Association, Madinaguda, Miyapur, filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in S.T.C. No.104 of 2008 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally. 2. S.T.C. No.104 of 2008 was filed by the Assistant District Fire Officer, Ranga Reddy District, against A.V.S.S. Murthy. It is not filed against the association. In this petition, it is mentioned as if the association is the accused. A.V.S.S. Murthy, may be, one of the persons in that association. In spite of it, it will not clothe the association with locus standi to file this petition. 3. Be that as it may, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. In the complaint, date of offence is noted as 18.02.2006. It is stated that the complaint was filed in December 2007. The complaint was filed under Sections 13, 19 and 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Act, 1999 (in short, the Act) read with Rules punishable under Section 31 of the said Act. 4. Inspection report of the District Fire Officer in this case is dated 07.02.2006. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused was negligent in providing mandatory fire safety measures to safeguard life and property in the building complex called “Deepu”. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner association consists purchasers of flats in that complex and that liability is on the landowners as well as builder to provide fire safety measures etc. But, under Section 19 of the Act liability to provide fire prevention and fire safety measures is on owner as well as on occupier. Therefore, neither the accused nor the petitioner association can disclaim their liability to provide the same. 5. Further, under Section 31 of the Act, not only contravening of any provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, but also failure to comply with any requisition lawfully made upon the accused under any provisions of the said Act, is punishable. In this case, the Director General of Fire Services issued notice dated 23.02.2006 to the accused setting out details of measures to be taken, under the heads of deficiencies in mandatory open spaces, deficiencies in mandatory means of escape, deficiencies in mandatory fire fighting equipment and fixed installations, deficiencies in mandatory water sources and deficiencies in mandatory fire pumps. The accused was requested to provide the above fire safety measures as per National Building Code of India. The accused, instead of complying with the said notice, did not give reply till 24.12.2007 setting out the compliance given by the association marking copies of that letter to G.H.M.C. and other authorities against the builder. Thus, it cannot be said that the complaint in the lower court is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Till filing of the complaint, notice dated 23.02.2006 of the Director General, Fire Services was not complied with by the accused. Thus, there are no legal or valid grounds in this petition to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No.104 of 2008 pending in the lower court. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: July 29, 2010. BSB