Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishal Jain And Another vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl.Misc.No.M-13472 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-13472 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION: October 3,2012
Vishal Jain and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Mr.D.P.Singh, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr.Pradeep Virk, DAG, Haryana.
DAYA CHAUDHARY,J.
FIR No.91 dated 4.4.2007 under Sections 6/7 of Punjab Schedule Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 was registered at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari and charge sheet was also filed against the petitioners.
Subsequently, petitioner company filed an application for compounding of structure as the matter was compounded by Director vide order dated 31.7.2009. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 27.3.2012. The petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No.M-13472 of 2012 2 revision before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari to challenge the order dated 3.3.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari but the same was dismissed. The revision was also dismissed on the ground that the revisional court has no power to interfere. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR No.91 dated 4.4.2007 and other consequential proceedings, including order passed by the revisional court and order passed by CJM vide which the application for compounding was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner company was wrongly dismissed without waiting for the order on the application for compounding which was compounded before the Director, Town and Country Planning in pursuance of order of Financial Commissioner dated 22.3.2009. Learned counsel also submits that admittedly the offence is compoundable and the case was sent for obtaining sanction to District Magistrate, Rewari through Superintendent of Police but the Investigating Officer did not inform Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate about the orders of compounding dated 31.7.2009. The application was dismissed contrary to the Crl.Misc.No.M-13472 of 2012 3 provisions of the Act. The revisional Court also dismissed the revision simply by stating that the revisional court has no power to interfere. The company applied for compounding of structure which was rejected by Director, Town and Country Planning on 9.7.2008 and appeal was filed before the Financial Commissioner which was accepted and order of Director, Town and Country Planning was set aside. It was mentioned in the order that the company would apply afresh to Director, Town and Country Planning for compounding the structure in view of the observations made in order dated 27.9.2008.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that during this period and
without waiting for some time, notice was issued under Section 160 CrPC to petitioner No.1 and after that getting anticipatory bail, an application for compounding of the case was moved before Director, Town and Country Planning. Learned senior counsel also submits that without waiting for the orders on the application for compounding which was allowed in pursuance of order passed by the Financial Commissioner, challan was prepared on 22.3.2009. The application moved before CJM was also dismissed without taking note of the provisions of the Act. Crl.Misc.No.M-13472 of 2012 4
Learned State counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that a communication has been received which is by way of letter dated 3.10.2012 addressed to the Advocate General, Haryana, wherein, it has been mentioned that unauthorized construction has been regularized and compounded in view of the provisions of the Act. It is also mentioned that as per provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act, no further proceedings lies against the petitioner company in respect of the unauthorized construction.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as State on the basis of letter dated 12.10.2012, the unauthorized construction has been regularized and the same has been compounded under the provisions of the Act. As per provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act, no further proceedings lies against the petitioner company. The provisions of Section 14 of the Act is reproduced as under:
14. (1) The Director or any person authorised by the Director by general or special order in this behalf may either or after the institution of the proceedings Crl.Misc.No.M-13472 of 2012 5 compound any offence made punishable by or under this Act.
2) Where an offence has been compounded the offender, if in custody shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of the offence compounded."
It is clear from Section 14(1) of the Act that Director or any person authorised by the Director by general or special order in this behalf may either or after the institution of the proceedings compound any offence made punishable by or under this Act. As per sub section (2) of the Act, in any case offence has been compounded, the accused is to be discharged and no proceedings be continued against him in respect of the offence compounded.
Although an alternative remedy of application for discharge is available to the petitioner but keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and order of compounding of the offence by respondent State, it would not be in the interest of justice to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC as it would be an abuse of process of the Court. This view has been fortified by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keki Hormusji Gharda & Crl.Misc.No.M-13472 of 2012 6 Ors. V. Mehervan Rustom Irani & Anr. 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 979.
In view of the compounding of the offence and regularization of the unauthorized construction, the proceedings are to be dropped as mentioned in sub section (2) of Section 14 of the Act.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.91 dated 4.4.2007 under Sections 6/7 of Punjab Schedule Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 registered at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari and other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
October 03,2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) KD JUDGE