COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION vs STATE OF DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 27.04.2026 Pronounced on: 18.06.2026 + CRL.REF. 1/2024 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ..…Petitioner Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae) with Mr.Chaitanya Gosain, and Mr.Hanif Chimthanawala, Advs. versus STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP with Mr.Manvendra Yadav and Mr.Atiq Ur Rehman, Advs. Mr.Tushar Sannu, SC with Mr.Priyankar Tiwary and Mr.Fajallu Rehman, Advs. for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT NAVIN CHAWLA, J. 1. The present petition is a Criminal Reference under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C.‟) registered pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REF. 1/2024 Page 1 of 48 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:18.06.2026 16:12:36 Court of Sh. Yashdeep Chahal, learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, seeking determination of the following questions of law arising in prosecutions under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,1957 (hereinafter referred to as „DMC Act‟): “(1) Whether any statutory timeline for the completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet in the Court is prescribed under DMC Act, specifically in Section 471 of the Act? If no, whether any question of chargesheet being barred by limitation would arise during the enquiry/trial of the offences under DMC Act? (2) Whether the DMC Act prescribes a bar on taking cognizance of an offence under Section 332 of DMC Act after the expiry of six months from the date of knowledge, as per Section 471 of the Act? (3) What is the scope and relevance of the requirement of sending a "complaint" to the Magistrate within six months, a