Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudha Rani vs State Of Haryana on 24 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)118PLR348
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. Smt. Sudha Rani wife of Sohan Lal Gupta, had filed the present petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the - quashment of F.I.R. No 441 dated 29.12.95 registered Under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Haryana Regulation of Urban Area Act, Police Station Gharaunda District Karnal and it has been alleged by the petitioner that a complaint was sent by the District Town Planner Karnal to the Superintendent of Police Karnal alleging that she had total area of land measuring 5 kanals 6 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 93//2/7, 93//11/2 of Khewat No, 769/3 Khata No. 1119/3 in the revenue estate of village Gharaunda District Karnal and had sub-divided 1 kanal 16 marlas of the aforesaid land into 7 plots for residential/Industrial and commercial purposes without obtaining licence from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana as desired Under Section 3 of the said Act. The petitioner has challenged the registration of FIR No. 441 dated 29.12.95 on the ground that the alleged sales are between 11.6.1992 to 30.6.1992 and that the F.I.R. has been registered after a lapse of 3 years and the challan has been presented in the year 1996 and in these circumstances the registration of the F.I.R. and submission of the challan against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law as the case was registered beyond limitation and the challan was also submitted beyond limitation. It has also been pleaded by the petitioner that the total area of the land sold was 910 sq. yards, which is less than 1000 sq. meters and, therefore, she has not violated the provisions of the said Act.
2. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent, who filed reply denying the allegations of the petitioner. A preliminary objection was also taken by the respondent that since the challan has already been presented against the petitioner, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. On merit it is pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner has sold the land which was more than 1000 sq. meters and as such she has committed the offence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
4. Annexure P.2 would make it amply clear that the offending sales are for the period w.e.f 11.6.1992 to 30.6.1992. The F.I.R. was registered in this case on 27.12.1995. The alleged violation is of the provisions of Section 7 of the Haryana Regulation of Urban Area Act punishable Under Section 10 of the said Act. According to Section 10 any person who contravenes any of the provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder or any condition of a licence granted Under Section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
5. According to Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section after the expiry of the period of limitation and according to Sub-section (2) of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the limitation is 3 years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. In this manner, the FIR could be registered up to 30.6.1995 at the maximum but the present case has been registered on 27.12.1995 and the challan has been presented in the year 1996. The very act of registration of the case is thus violation of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. It has been held in A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 604 State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. that the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings, if for the launching of such criminal proceedings there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. The learned A.A.G., Haryana could not dispute the fact that the F.I.R. was registered on 27.12.1995 which is beyond three years and in these circumstances the prosecution of the petitioner in the year 1996 was nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
6. So far as the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned this court does not find force in it, because this fact has been disputed by the State that the area of the land sold was more than 1000 sq. yards. It is well settled that the disputed questions of fact cannot be entertained and adjudicated upon in the proceedings Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. For the reasons stated above, this petition is hereby allowed and the F.I.R. No. 441 dated 29.12.1995 registered Under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Haryana Regulation of Urban Area Act, Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal is hereby quashed and directions are given to the learned Magistrate not to proceed with the trial against the petitioner in this F.I.R.