Judgment:-

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Cr.P.C.). Respondent had made prayer that the FIR No. 152 dated 12.7.2002 registered under Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations, 1995 (in short the ‘Regulation) at police station Sultanwind, Amritsar, should be quashed. The complaint was filed on the premises that the total area alleged to have sold was 1861.16 Sq. Yards which was jointly held by four real brothers and the individual shares comes to 465.29 Sq. Yards. It was alleged that the accused persons had sold joint family property by conveying land into an unauthorised colony in violation of the provisions of the Act and each one of them was therefore guilty of offence punishable under Section 36 of the Act read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC). The respondents in the petition filed before the High Court stated that the individual shares come below 465.29 sq. yards and, therefore, there was no violation. The stand of the appellant before the High Court was that by selling 1861.16 Sq. Yards in a joint Khasra to different purchasers, the accused person had violated the provisions of the Act and, therefore, they were rightly proceeded against. Reference was made under Section 2(k) of the Act which shows that the expression ‘Person includes a ‘company, firm, cooperative society, joint family and ‘body of persons whether incorporated or not. Therefore, it was pleaded that the joint holders are to be treated as one person in the eye of law in such prosecutions. The High Court accepted the stand of the respondents by holding that even if the property continued to be joint, it cannot be said that the venders had sold anything more than their respective shares.

3. Section 2(i) of the Act reads as follows:

"Colony - Colony means an area of land not less than 1000 sq. meters divided or proposed to be divided into plots for residential, commercial or industrial purpose, but does not include any area of abadi deh of the village falling inside its Lallakir or phirny or any area of land divided or proposed to be divided."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused persons have accepted that they had sold the land in the year 1996 and, therefore, there was clear violation. It is submitted that the High Court had not kept in view the parameters of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned order of the High Court. It was also submitted that no offence was made out.

6. It appears that the High Court came to an abrupt conclusion that if the property continues to be joint it cannot be said that the vendor sold anything more than their respective shares.

7. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the Section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil