corporate law

Punjab and Haryana High Court: FIRs Invalid Under Water and Air Acts

Prosecution Under the Water and Air Act Requires Complaint Cases Only: Police Cannot Register FIRs

Introduction

The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a significant ruling on February 8, 2024, in the case of Ravi Shanker Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another , emphasizing that prosecution under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, can only occur through complaint cases, not by the filing of FIRs by police.

Case Overview

The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash FIR No. 99, registered on March 17, 2016, under Section 188 IPC, and Sections 33A of both the Water Act and the Air Act at Police Station Mujessar, District Faridabad.

Factual Background

The petitioner, who operates M/s Mahadev Forgings & Components Firm, obtained the necessary permissions to conduct business in 2005, focusing on manufacturing automobile parts. However, the Haryana State Pollution Control Board issued a closure order on September 12, 2014, citing operations without proper permissions. This closure was contested, but the appeal was dismissed, leading to further sealing of the unit. An inspection on December 30, 2015, revealed the unit operating unlawfully after the seal was broken, prompting a complaint that led to the impugned FIR.

Legal Observations

The Court highlighted the following statutory provisions:

Section 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981:

  • Cognizance of Offences:
    • Courts can only take cognizance of offences under this Act on complaints from authorized Boards or officers, or by persons who have provided a 60-day notice of the alleged offence.

Section 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:

  • Cognizance of Offences:
    • Similar provisions as outlined in the Air Act; a court must receive complaints from authorized Boards or officers only.

The Bench noted that the explicit procedures laid out in these statutes exclude the applicability of IPC provisions, enforcing strict adherence to the established methods for prosecuting violations.

Key Findings

  1. Exclusion of IPC Provisions: The Court stated that if a special statute prescribes specific procedures, these must be followed exclusively, rendering the general provisions of the IPC inapplicable.
  2. Definition of Complaint: Under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), a complaint does not encompass police reports, confirming that allegations must be initiated through specific complaints.
  3. Legal Precedents: The Bench referenced the Supreme Court's rulings affirming that under special statutes like the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, police do not have prosecutorial authority unless explicitly stated.

Conclusion

The Bench concluded that the FIR registered was invalid due to the absence of a proper complaint filed by an authorized officer. Hence, it quashed FIR No. 99. This ruling makes it unequivocally clear that the prosecution under both the Water and Air Acts must proceed via complaint cases, and police cannot file FIRs in these instances. This decision underscores the obligation of law enforcement to adhere to the established legal framework as articulated by the Court.