The main legal point established is that the bar of limitation on prosecution, as provided in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can lead to the quashing of an FIR.

J.B.Garg, J.

1. Ram Chander and his son Dushayant Kumar residents of Gurgaon owned agricultural land in Khewat NO. 126, Khata No. 172, Killa No. 13 totaling 18 Kanals 5 Marlas. However, out of this they sold 4 Kanals 2 Marlas agricultural land to Israil son of Issaq and Asar Khan son of Amin Khan on 17.9.1987. However, on 22.9.1990 the present FIR has been registered under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975. The present petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that since the challan has not been presented within a period of 3 years the FIR is liable to be quashed because it is now barred by virtue of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case the factual position that the sale was made on 17.9.1987 and the FIR ws registered on 22.9.1990, is undisputed. It has also not been controverted in para No. 9 of the reply filed by the District Town Planner Enforcement, Faridabad, dated 29.7.1991.

2. In State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054, it was observed that the objection of putting a bar of limitation on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time. In Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) RCR 467, prosecution after expiry of the period of limitation under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, was disliked. Consequently, the present petition moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, succeeds and the FIR in question is hereby quashed.