PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Bali, J.
Krishan
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Misc. No. 18454-M of 1994,
Decided On : APRIL 22, 1995
Attorney - Haryana Development Regulation of Urban Area Act - The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, who was acting as an attorney for the owner of the land, holding that the criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner as he was only acting on the wishes of the owner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings under Section 10 of the Haryana Development Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975, pertaining to the sale of land in contravention of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, acting as an attorney for the owner, cannot be held criminally liable for the sale of the land and quashed the FIR against the petitioner, allowing the prosecution to proceed against the owner of the property.
Issues: The core issue was whether the petitioner, as an attorney, could be prosecuted under Section 10 of the Act for the sale of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the attorney acts only at the behest and instance of the owner, and it is the owner who can possibly be prosecuted and convicted under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner and allowed the prosecution to proceed against the owner of the property in accordance with the law.
V.K.Bali, J.
1. Sri Krishan through present petition filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of FIR No. 501 dated 17.12.1990, Annexure P-1, under Section 10 of the Haryana Development Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 (for short the Act) pertaining to Police Station City, Sirsa and consequent proceedings that were initiated against him and which are stated to be pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa.
2. The core of allegations against the petitioner is that he sold 24 Kanals 10 Marlas of land vide various sale deeds from 10.4.1990 to 2.5.1990 in contravention of Section 10 of the Act. In the notice that has been given to the petitioner, it has been mentioned that he was also one of the owners of the plots, subject-matter of sale.
3. It is positive case of the petitioner that he is son of the original owner and is holding attorney and that being so, criminal liability cannot be fastened upon him and, if at all, his father could be prosecuted as it is his wishes which were translated by him for selling the plots being attorney only.
4. There appears to be considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Attorney acts only at the behest and instance of the owner. It is his wishes which he translates on the basis of attorney executed in his favour and it is the owner selling the land, who can possibly be prosecuted and convicted under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. Mr. Duhan, learned AAG, Haryana, has not been able to defend the cause of petitioner on any meaningful argument nor has he brought to the notice of this Court any provisions of the Act or Rules that might entitle the investigating agency to prosecute an attorney of the owner.
5. That being so, the FIR against the petitioner is quashed. However, it shall be open for the prosecution to prosecute owner of the property in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.
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.