Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandkishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6565
1
MCRC 7059 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7059 of 2012
NANDKISHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Romil Verma- G.A. for the State.
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.07.2012, passed by the Xth Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No.505/2012, affirming the
order dated 06.06.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Criminal
Case No.27721/2009, whereby charges have been framed against the
petitioner under Section 5/15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1986’).
3] The petitioner has challenged the order of framing of charges
dated 06.06.2021, alleging illegal boring and violation of Section 5/15
of the Act of 1986. The aforesaid order has also been affirmed by the
District Revisional Court vide its order dated 25.07.2012.
4] In brief, the facts of the case are that on 27.12.2008, one Nasir
Khan was passing through the 60 ft. road, Near Akshat Garden, Near
Dena Bank, Indore, at that time, he saw that a boring machine was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:46:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6565
2
MCRC 7059 of 2012
drilling a bore, and when he enquired from the operator of boring
machine if he has any permission to bore, to which, the operator
threatened him, which led Nasir Khan to approach the Police and lodge
an FIR at Crime No.1148/2008. The investigation ensued, in which it
was found that there was prohibition on boring, and it could only be
done through permission from the District Magistrate, and thus, after
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed along with the complaint of the
Additional Collector, on 09.12.2009.
5] The objection of the petitioner is that under Section 19 of the Act
of 1986 the cognizance could only have been taken by the District
Magistrate on a complaint made by the Central Government or any
person authorized by the concerned authority, whereas, in the present
case, admittedly, the final report has been filed by the Police on a
complaint made by Nasir Khan, and only a covering letter of the
Additional Collector has been filed along with the charge-sheet, to
constitute it as a complaint which mode is not permissible under the Act
of 1986.
6] Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the aforesaid process adopted by the Police is dehors the
mandate of Section 19, as also Section 10, which provides for the
powers of entry and inspection. It is submitted that if the complaint was
made by a private person, then 60 days’ notice ought to have been
issued as per Section 19, and the complaint itself ought to have been
filed by the Additional Collector as per the notification, instead of
endorsing the charge-sheet filed by the police, which provision is alien
to Section 19. In support of his submissions, Shri Sisodiya has relied
upon the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:46:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6565
3
MCRC 7059 of 2012
Vishal Chandrakant Mhatre Vs. The State of Maharashtra, passed in
Criminal Writ Petition No.4388/2015.
7] Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer,
and it is submitted the no illegality has been committed by both the
Courts of the District Court as the complaint has been filed by the
authorized Officer only, though, the investigation was carried out by the
Police Officer.
8] Heard. So far as Sections 10 and 19 of the Act of 1986, on which
the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon, are concerned, the same
read as under:-
“10. POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person
empowered by the Central Government in this behalf shall have a
right to enter, at all reasonable times with such assistance as he
considers necessary, any place–
(a) for the purpose of performing any of the functions of the
Central Government entrusted to him;
(b) for the purpose of determining whether and if so in what
manner, any such functions are to be performed or whether any
provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or any
notice, order, direction or authorisation served, made, given or
granted under this Act is being or has been complied with;
(c) for the purpose of examining and testing any equipment,
industrial plant, record, register, document or any other material
object or for conducting a search of any building in which he
has reason to believe that an offence under this Act or the rules
made thereunder has been or is being or is about to be
committed and for seizing any such equipment, industrial plant,
record, register, document or other material object if he has
reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the
commission of an offence punishable under this Act or the rules
made thereunder or that such seizure is necessary to prevent or
mitigate environmental pollution.
(2) Every person carrying on any industry, operation or
process of handling any hazardous substance shall be bound to
render all assistance to the person empowered by the Central
Government under sub-section (1) for carrying out the functions
under that sub-section and if he fails to do so without any reasonable
cause or excuse, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
(3) If any person willfully delays or obstructs any persons
empowered by the Central Government under sub-section (1) in theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:46:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:65654
MCRC 7059 of 2012
performance of his functions, he shall be guilty of an offence under
this Act.
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
or, in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, or an area in
which that Code is not in force, the provisions of any corresponding
law in force in that State or area shall, so far as may be, apply to any
search or seizures under this section as they apply to any search or
seizure made under the authority of a warrant issued under section
94 of the said Code or as the case may be, under the corresponding
provision of the said law.
xxxxxx
19. COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES.-
No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act
except on a complaint made by–
(a) the Central Government or any authority or officer
authorised in this behalf by that Government1 , or
(b) any person who has given notice of not less than
sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence
and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Central
Government or the authority or officer authorised as
aforesaid.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
9] Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, this Court finds that it is not disputed that initially the FIR was
lodged by one Nasir Khan alleging illegal boring by the boring machine
which was installed on a truck bearing registration No.KA-01-MB-
4145, and after investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed alleging
commission of offence under Section 5(3) of the Act of 1986. It is also
found that in the final report, the complaint of Additional Collector,
Indore is also filed with the title, ‘Complaint under Section 19 of
Environment (Protection) Act’. In the aforesaid complaint, all the
relevant aspects of the matter have been noted by the Additional
Collector with the further request that the accused be punished
accordingly. Along with the complaint, the Gazette notification
30.09.2003 has also been filed, along with public notice issued
prescribing the authorized officer to supervise the falling water levels,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:46:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6565
5
MCRC 7059 of 2012
and the District Collectors have been directed to maintain the proper
water levels.
10] In the considered opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by
the Additional Collector in lodging the complaint cannot be said to be
beyond the scope of the authority given to him under Section 19 of the
Act. This is for the reason that whenever such complaints are made
regarding the illegal boring or drilling by a concerned citizen, he or she
has no source of knowing as to who is the person authorized to file a
complaint in this regard, nor do they possess any such knowledge that
for this purpose a special procedure is provided under the Environment
Protection Act. Thus, the normal reflection of a person who is alleging
illegal boring would be to lodge a complaint/report to the concerned
Police Station, and it is the duty of the officer of the concerned Police
Station to look into the veracity of the same, ensuring the lodging of the
complaint in accordance with law, through the authorized officer.
11] So far as the complaint filed by the Additional Collector along
with the charge-sheet is concerned, in order to demonstrate that all the
aspects of the matter have been considered by the Additional Collector,
it would be relevant to refer to the same,. The aforesaid document reads
as under:-
“कार्ाालर् कलेक्टर जिला इंदौर (म.प्र)
क्रं. क ू/पे जल/ 09 दिन ंक- 02/03/2009
प्रति,
न् त क िं ड धिक री महोि
प्रथम श्रेणी न् ल , इंिौरपररवाद पत्र धारा 19 पर्ाावरण (सरं क्षण) अधधनिर्म 1986
महोि ,
प्रकरण क संक्षिप्त ि वरररण इस प्रक र हक क केन्री
भूममगि जल प्र धिकरण नई दिल्ली द्र र ज री अधिसचन दिन ंकSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:46:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:65656
MCRC 7059 of 2012
30 मसिम्बर 2003 द्र र मध् प्रिे श के इंिौर जजले के इंिौर
म् ूतनमसपल क रपोरे शन िेत्र को भूजल िोहन तन त्रंण हे िु
नोदिफ इड एरर घोविि क ग थ । इस सच
ू न क प्रक शन
तिथी के 90 दिन पश्च ि बबन वरशेि पूर ानुमति के कोई व् जि /
संगठन / अमभकरण (सरक री अथर गकरसरक री) खि
ु ई प्र क
तनम ाण कसी नई संरचन एरं ोजन भूजल वरक स परर ोजन
की स्थ पन नहीं करे ।
क ाल ीन आिे श क्र. क 21 / पे जल / 2007 दिन ंक 02/03/07
द्र र केन्री भूजल प्र िीक री के पत्र क्रं. क 4/4 सीजीडब्लूए / 04-
882 दिन ंक 05 मसम्बर 2006 के संबंि में इंिौर नगर तनगम सीम
िेत्र के मलए केन्री भज
ू ल प्र धिकरण के अंिगिा कलेिर जजल
इंिौर की अध् िि में सममति क गठन क ग हक िथ
दिन ंक 02 म चा 07 म चा के पश्च ि इंिौर नगर तनगम सीम में
नलकूप ट् ब
ू रेल हे ण्डपम्प खनन के मलए कलेिर जजल इंिौर की
अध् िि में गदठि सममति में पर
ू ानम
ु ति लेन अतनर ा क
ग ।
उि आिे श क प लन क े ज ने के संबंि में थ न
चंिननगर इंिौर द्र र अपने िेत्र में दिन ंक 27.12.08 को प्र प्त ि
सूचन के आि र पर प ग क अिि ग डान के प स स्कीम
न. क 71 में ड्रिमलंग बोररंग मशीन न. क केए -01/एमबी – 4145 संच मलि
थी िथ खनन करिी हुई च लू प ई गई उि खनन क आरोपी
नंि कशोर वपि र मचंर मण्लोई 39 स ल तन. क ग्र म कम्पेल थ न
खड
ु ल
क इंिौर द्र र मौके पर कर ज रह थ । उि खनन के
संबि में अनुमति म ंगे ज ने पर प्रस्िुि नहीं की गई जजससे स्पष्ि
हक नलकूप खनन क क ा बबन अनुमति प्र प्त ि क े क ज रह
थ जो प ाररण संरिण अधितन म 1986 की ि र के िहि ज री
श सन आिे श के उल्लघंन की श्रेणी में आि हक । अिः आरोपी
नंि कशोर वपि र मचंर मण्लोई 39 स ल तन. कग्र म कम्पेल थ न
खड
ु ल
क इंिौर के द्र र उि उल्लघंन के क रण उसके वररुद्ि थ न
बंिननगर पर अप क्र. क 1148/08 ि र प ाररण संरिण अधितन म
1986 की िर 5 र उप ि र (2) के खण्ड 12 (14) क अपर ि
पंजीबद्ि कर वररेचन की गई हक । वररेचन में आरोपी द्र र
उल्लघंन करन प ग हक । प ाररण संरिण अधितन म 1986 केSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:46:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:65657
MCRC 7059 of 2012
िहि लोक सेरक की ओर से मलखखि पररर ि प्रस्िुि क जन
आरश् क हक । अिः प ाररण संरिण अधितन म 1986 की ि र 19
के िहि आरोपी नंि कशोर वपि र मचंर मण्लोई 39 स ल तन. कग्र म
कम्पेल थ न खड
ु ल
क इंिौर को प ाररण संरिण अधितन म 1986 की
ि र 15 के िहि िं ड्रडि क े ज ने ब बि पररर ि पत्र म ननी
न् ल के समि प्रेविि हक ।
अपर कलेिर
जजल इंिौर”
12] A perusal of the aforesaid complaint would reveal that the
Additional Collector has taken care of all the aspects of the matter, and
in such circumstances, merely because the initial complaint was made to
the Police by a private citizen, and the Police has also carried out the
investigation, it cannot be said that the entire process of filing the
complaint has been vitiated. This Court is also of the considered opinion
that there is no embargo in the Act of 1986 for the authorised officer to
rely upon the material collected by the police during investigation.
13] This Court is also of the considered opinion that if Section 19 is
given strict interpretation to hold that even the initial report has to be
lodged to the authorized officer only and he would only be required to
carry out further investigation, it would certainly defeat the entire
purpose of the Act, i.e., to protect the environment, as it is not expected
from any person who is concerned for the environment to first search
for the authorized officer to whom such complaint can be made instead
of going to the nearest Police Station, and by the time he reaches the
authorised officer after consuming considerable time, the irreparable
damage to the environment would have already been done. Thus, when
an illegal drilling or any other activity harming the environment is
spotted by any person, it has to be stopped then and there only and such
prompt action can only be taken through the concerned Police Station
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:46:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6565
8
MCRC 7059 of 2012
having territorial jurisdiction over the area. Thus, if literal interpretation
is given to Section 19 to hold that all the investigation has to be carried
out by the Collector only, it would lead to defeating the very purpose of
the Act of 1986 which cannot be the intention of the Legislature.
14] As has also been argued by Shri Sisodia, so far as the application
under Section 10 is concerned, which provides for powers of entry and
inspection, it is found that the same is set in Chapter III of the Act of
1986 which contains the procedure for Prevention, Control and
Abatement of Environment Pollution. Section 7 provides for Persons
Carrying on Industry Operation, etc., Not to Allow Emission or
Discharge of Environmental Pollutants in Excess of the Standards.-,
Section 8 provides for Persons Handling Hazardous Substances to
Comply with Procedural Safeguards, and Section 9 provides for
Furnishing Of Information To Authorities And Agencies in Certain
Cases. Thus, this Court finds that Section 10 would be applicable in
cases only where search and seizure are required to be performed in an
industry, and has no application in the facts and circumstances of the
case, where a boring machine was drilling a bore on a roadside.
15] In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any
substance in the petition, and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed.
16] So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Vishal Chandrakant Mhatre (Supra) is
concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts, as in the said case, the
complaint itself was filed by the person not authorized under Section 19
of the Act of 1986.
17] Since the further proceeding of the Trial Court was stayed by this
Court vide its order dated 29.01.2013, the same consequently stands
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:46:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6565
9
MCRC 7059 of 2012
vacated, and the learned judge of the Trial Court is requested to expedite
the matter.
18] Petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on
29.04.2026.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:46:52
