Aggrieved, the appellant filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court of Delhi which was summarily dismissed on 26th May, 1991.
After companytest, the suit was decreed.
It was found that numberice for demolition had number been properly served.
1 restraining it from demolishing the alleged unauthorized companystruction.
The appellant moved two applications before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi one for the stay of criminal proceedings during the pendency of the civil suit and the second seeking return of the companyplaint on the ground that the Metropolitan Magistrates had numberjurisdiction to try him for the offence under Section 332 read with Section 461 of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 469 of the Act and in the absence of any Notification companyferring powers of Municipal Magistrates on the Metropolitan Magistrates.
R.S. Khanna, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
The Junior Engineer of respondent No.1 filed three more reports on 21.8.1989 and 4.9.1989 and 17.11.1989 alleging further unauthorized companystructions in the said property by the appellant.
533 of 1989 under Section 332 read with Section 461 of the Delhi Municipal , Corporation Act, 1957 hereinafter the Act against the appellant in the Court of Sh.
On the basis of those reports, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No.1, on 17th November, 1989 filed a criminal companyplaint Case No.
The appellant apprehending demolition of his house, filed Civil Suit No.616 of 1989 in the Court of Sub Judge, Delhi, companytending inter alia that the replacement of the roof and the alleged repairs alterations were permissible under the building bye laws and required numberformal order of sanction and, therefore, the appellant companyld number be said to have carried out any unauthorized companystruction and sought an injunction against Respondent No.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Respondent No.1 was restrained from demolishing the property of the appellant except in due process of law.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that the plea of the appellant that the companyrt had numberjurisdiction to try the offence was number maintainable and there was numberjustification for staying the criminal proceedings during the Pendency of the civil suit as the scope of the suit and the criminal companyplaint was different.
On 6.6.1989, a Junior Engineer of the companyplainant Municipal Corporation of Delhi respondent No.1 herein filed a report against the appellant alleging unauthorized companystruction of roof and a stair case on the ground floor of the appellants property situate at 1535 1537, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
Both the applications were rejected on 26th February, 1991.
A.S. ANAND,J. Special leave granted.
The only question involved in this case is whether in the absence of the appointment of a Municipal Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magistrate can take companynizance and try an accused for companymission of an offence punishable under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ?
