MP HC Quashes Housing Society FIR Over Alleged Unbuilt EWS Flats, Finding Existing-Permission Breach Outside Amended Municipal Act Offences

The petitioner cooperative housing society challenged an FIR alleging that it failed to construct required EWS/LIG dwelling units for its “Yashoda Residency” project and, in connivance with an architect, obtained a completion certificate.

The FIR invoked Section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

The Society had obtained development and building permissions and had mortgaged property as security; the Municipal Corporation later released the mortgage and, in 2022, cancelled the permissions after an enquiry.

An earlier petition challenging the same FIR was declined in 2020 while investigation was pending.

The Society brought this successive petition under Section 528 BNSS, relying on the 2021 statutory amendment and a 2026 order quashing proceedings against the co-accused architect.

Section 528 BNSS permits the High Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process; a successive petition is not barred where material subsequent developments arise, though it cannot merely re-raise grounds available earlier, as explained in Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 17 SCC 294, and Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 955.

Under amended Sections 292-B, 292-C and 292-BA of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, Section 292-C(1) addresses development without permission, Section 292-C(2) addresses specified dealings with or construction on land designated under Section 292-B(4), and Section 292-BA provides a separate mechanism for violations of permission conditions.

A beneficial amendment mitigating penal consequences may be considered in pending proceedings, applying T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177, and Trilok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 763.

Forgery requires the making of a false document; use of a forged document requires an identified forged document and the requisite knowledge or belief, while conspiracy requires an agreement or meeting of minds.

The Court relied on Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581, concerning identification of the maker of the false document.

The Court held the successive petition maintainable because the 2021 amendment, the 2022 cancellation of permissions and the 2026 order concerning the co-accused arose after the earlier petition and were not merely renewed arguments on the same material.

The FIR accepted that the Society had development permissions; its principal allegation was failure to provide EWS/LIG units under Section 292-B(2).

That allegation did not, on its face, fall within the specified categories in amended Section 292-C(1) or (2), and the statutory scheme separately addressed breaches of permission conditions through Section 292-BA.

The mortgage-release deed and the Corporation’s subsequent actions supported the conclusion that the dispute concerned compliance with an existing permission, though the deed was not conclusive proof of compliance.

As to the IPC offences, the prosecution identified no specific false document made by the Society; an allegedly incorrect assertion in an application was not, without more, the making of a false document.

Nor was specific material showing a meeting of minds disclosed.

The Court therefore found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out on the material before it, without conducting a mini-trial.

It allowed the petition and quashed Crime No. 65/2020 and the consequential proceedings against the petitioner-Society under Section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

The order did not prevent the Municipal Corporation from pursuing any administrative or statutory remedy available under law, and it expressed no opinion on the Society’s independent civil or administrative liability.