Revisional Court cannot set aside cognizance against private individuals by misinterpreting penal provisions as applicable only to municipal officers.

The petitioner, Kaushal Gupta, filed a complaint under Section 187(8) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, alleging that respondents No. 1 and 2 (private builders) constructed a seven-storey building without requisite permission, causing loss of light and air.

The Trial Court took cognizance on 15.01.2018 and issued bailable warrants on 05.02.2018.

Respondents challenged these orders via Criminal Revisions No. 02/2018 and 15/2018.

The Revisional Court set aside the Trial Court's orders on 21.08.2018, primarily observing that Section 187(8) does not authorize action against Municipal Officers and implies inapplicability to private individuals.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC challenging the Revisional Court's orders.

Whether Section 187(8) of the MP Municipalities Act, 1961 applies to private individuals undertaking unauthorized construction.

Whether the Revisional Court erred in law by quashing the cognizance order based on a narrow interpretation of the statutory provisions.

The court primarily interpreted Section 187 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, which mandates prior sanction for the erection or re-erection of buildings.

Specifically, Section 187(8) provides for penal consequences against any "person" who constructs in contravention of the Act or without sanction.

The court also exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to ensure the correctness and propriety of the inferior court's orders.

The High Court found that the Revisional Court adopted a "narrow construction" of Section 187(8) by erroneously suggesting it did not apply to private individuals like respondents No. 1 and 2.

The High Court clarified that a plain reading of the statute indicates liability for "any person" violating construction mandates, which squarely includes private builders.

The Court noted that the Revisional Court failed to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the statutory scheme or examine whether the complaint's allegations prima facie disclosed an offence before setting aside the Trial Court's process.

It held that at the stage of cognizance, the court need only determine if a prima facie case exists, and the merits of the allegations are matters for trial.

The Court held that the Revisional Court's findings were not sustainable in their present form due to misinterpretation of Section 187(8).

The matters were remitted back to the Revisional Court for fresh consideration of Criminal Revisions No. 02/2018 and 15/2018, with directions to pass a reasoned order uninfluenced by previous observations.