Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 11 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Indus Towers Limited (company) represented by Shri Sandip Ganpat Thakur, and individual petitioner Shri Bandu Vishnu Khandagale. Respondents: State of Maharashtra (through Pen Police Officer) and Pen Nagar Parishad (through Chief Officer). Counsel: Senior Counsel Anil Anturkar for petitioners; Ms Megha Bajoria (A.P.P.) for the State; Ms Priyanka Bhadrashete for Pen Nagar Parishad.
  • Background: On 5 January 2020 Indus Towers submitted a proposal for a ground‑based telecommunication tower on Survey No. 1923(B) within Pen Municipal Council jurisdiction. On 2 March 2020 the Council directed resubmission due to policy changes, yet the company proceeded to install the tower on a building terrace without any permission, contrary to its own proposal.
  • Notices issued: 2 March 2020 notice under Section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 demanding removal of the unauthorised construction within 15 days; 3 March 2020 notice under Section 53(1) read with Section 152 of the MRTP Act demanding removal within 24 hours.
  • FIR: C.R. No. 37 of 2020 registered on 12 March 2020 with Pen Police Station under Section 53(7) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. A notice under Section 41A(1) CrPC was issued on 14 March 2020; petitioners replied on 17 March 2020. A fresh application for permission was filed on 7 July 2020.
  • Petitioners’ arguments: FIR premature (filed before expiry of 15‑day notice on 17 March 2020); lack of prior sanction under Section 142 of the MRTP Act; delegation under Section 77(2) of the Municipal Councils Act does not empower filing of FIR under the MRTP Act; the MRTP Act is superseded by the Telecom Infrastructure Policy 2018.
  • Respondents’ arguments: Authority to file FIR derived from Section 2(20) of the Municipal Councils Act and Section 2(19) of the MRTP Act; delegation under Section 77(2) permissible; construction was unauthorised and misleading as the application sought a ground‑based tower while work was on a roof.
  • Statutory provisions cited: Sections 53, 142 of the MRTP Act; Sections 77(2), 189 of the Municipal Councils Act; Section 53(6) of the MRTP Act; Section 41A(1) CrPC.
  • Judicial precedents: Mahesh Shivram Puthran v. Commissioner of Police, Thane (2011) – FIR cannot be registered without sanction under Section 142 of the MRTP Act; Bharati Airtel Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (2016) – same principle reiterated.
  • Court’s reasoning: The FIR dated 12 March 2020 was filed before the statutory 15‑day period prescribed in the notice expired, making it premature. No sanction under Section 142 was obtained; the Assistant Town Planner lacked authority to file the complaint. Delegation under Section 77(2) pertains only to matters under the Municipal Councils Act and cannot be extended to the MRTP Act, a special statute that prevails over general law. Consequently, the prosecution was untenable and amounted to an abuse of process.

Final Outcome

  • Exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the Court quashed FIR No. 37‑2020 and the accompanying chargesheet, thereby dismissing the criminal proceedings against Indus Towers Ltd and the individual petitioner.
  • The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (AA).

Topics: Regulatory Compliance, Telecom Infrastructure