Can the right to file a complaint against any wrongdoing in the society, be used by anyone and everyone?

Falgu Mukati | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 16th February 2020

Pratap Lal Teli vs State of Maharashtra and Ors, Criminal Application NO.369 OF 2019

Matter 

The applicant Mr. Aditya Pratap is a social conscious person and has been taking up various social issues relating to environment and in particular the harm caused to the environment on account of illegal construction. In this case the appellant (i.e. Aditya Pratap) has accused some people of constructing a Commercial and I.T. Building without adhering to the norms contained in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 i.e. without obtaining the Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) under the EIA Notification of 2006 and thereby they have cheated the Government. Thus, he filed a complaint under Section 156(3), of the Criminal Procedure Code, thereby seeking police investigation under Sections 420, 120-B and Section 187 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act. The complaint was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The appeal was then made to the Sessions Judge who as well dismissed the complaint. 

Appellant’s Contention 

• Although offence contained under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is non-cognizable, it must be noted that the provisions of Part-II of Schedule-I of the Criminal Procedure Code, are cognizable. 
• This enactment prescribes a penalty with imprisonment for a term of five years or with fine which may extend to Rs.5 lakhs, or both.
• The Sessions Judge has without any application of mind erroneously dismissed the petition. 
• The Sessions Judge has erred in prescribing the criteria of locus standi in filing criminal case under the Environment (Protection) Act. The Apex Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr, stated that, anyone can put the criminal law into motion unless contradicted by a statutory provision. 
• It produced 15 members Expert Body Report of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee as an evidence which stated that in the meeting held by them it was noted that the construction work initiated by the them did not have the Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. 

Respondent’s Contention 

• The applicant has no locus standi and that that the applicant is an uninterested party in the case and that his motive was to harass the respondents. 
• As per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, since the total built up area of the plot to be constructed was less than 20000 sq. meters, there was no need of environmental clearance approval. 
• The concerned authorities like SEIAA, SEAC, Environment Department and the Police Authority knew of the construction work and were very well updated of the fact and that that there was no violation of law. 
• The provisions in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case of any inconsistency between the two then the provisions of the special law would prevail in accordance with Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Held

• The contention of the Applicant that he is a private person and is at liberty to file FIR with the police disclosing cognizable offence by the accused under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act is without any merit and substance.  
• The present Criminal Application is without any merit and the inherent deficiency noted by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the first instance and the Sessions Court in revision, in not entertaining the complaint by the Applicant cannot be faulted with and both the impugned orders do not call for any interference.  The Criminal Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.