PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.M.Jain, J.
Janak Raj
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Misc. No. 9209 of 1998,
Decided On : JULY 19, 2002
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashment of FIR - Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 - Section 3, Section 10, Section 468, Section 469, Section 473
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner filed a petition seeking quashment of FIR for violating the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The accused argued that the FIR was time-barred and should be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings against the accused were beyond the period of limitation, and the court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence. The court concluded that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed due to being time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 to determine the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence. The court also considered the lack of explanation for the delay in submitting the challan.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, including the notice of accusation and the order, were quashed.
V.M.Jain, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of FIR No. 490 dated 9.11.1983, registered in PS Ambala City, for the violation of the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Annexure P1 is the copy of the aforesaid FIR, which was registered in the Police Station, on the basis of letter dated 8.7.1983 received from District Town Planner, Ambala. It was alleged that M/s. Upper India Glass Works c/o Seth Janak Raj, was the owner of the land measuring 30250 square meters (60 kanals) and that he had sub-divided the land into plots for residential, industrial and commercial purposes, without obtaining a licence from the Director, Town and Counter Planning, Haryana, as required under the Act. It was alleged that he had sold the plots to Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, Sohan Lal Sharma and Smt. Sushma and in this manner he had contravened the provisions of Clause (i) of Section 3 of the said Act. Details of the sale transactions of the said three persons were given in the document attached with the said letter.
3. In the present petition filed by the accused-petitioner, it was alleged that after registration of the aforesaid FIR on 9.11.1983, the challan was submitted in the Court only on 11.11.1986 and that the petitioner was served with notice of accusation on 7.4.1988. It was alleged that the FIR was hopelessly barred by time. It was further alleged that the petitioner filed application on 20.10.1995 for the discharge of the accused-petitioner, but the said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 9.8.1997, copy Annexure P-2. It was alleged that the FIR and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon be quashed, on various grounds including limitation.
4. Inspector Udai Singh, SHO PS Ambala City in the written statement admitted that FIR dated 8.11.1983 was registered on the basis of letter dated 8.7.1983, received from the office of Town and Country Planning Department and that after investigation, challan was submitted in the court on 11.11.1986. It was alleged that the proceedings could not be quashed on the ground of limitation or on any other ground.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. Any contravention of the provisions of the Act is punishable under Section 10 of the said Act. It has been provided therein that any person, who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder or any of the conditions 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. As referred to above, the FIR in question was registered on 8.11.1983 on the basis of letter dated 8.7.1983, received from the District Town Planner, Ambala. Alongwith said letter, list of sale transactions was attached by way of annexure. As per the said list, sale transactions had taken place on 7.9.1982. If the District Town Planner had sent letter dated 8.7.1983 to the police for the registration of the FIR on account of violation of the provisions of the Act, it can be presumed that the authorities had come to know about the alleged contravention on 8.7.1983. Police had registered the FIR on 8.11.1983. It is admitted case of the parties that the challan was submitted in the court on 11.11.1986 i.e. more than three years after the registration of the formal FIR on 8.11.1983.
7. Under Section 468(1) Cr.P.C. it has been provided that no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified under sub-section (2) after the expiry of period of limitation. As per sub-section (2) of Section 468, period of limitation shall be (a) 6 months if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; and (c) three years if the offence is pun
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.