The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict application of the limitation period under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. and the interpretation of the nature of the offence under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 in determining the bar to prosecution.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.213 dated 25.06.2015, registered under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal and all consequential proceedings arising there from.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was registered on 25.06.2015 with the allegations that vide Memo No.311 dated 15.02.2012, the District Town Planner, Kaithal has directed the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal for initiating legal action and for registration of the FIR. However, the FIR was got registered beyond a period of 03 years. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that even the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented in this case on 25.01.2017 i.e. again after a period of about 1½ years from the date of registration of the FIR. It is, thus, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the FIR which was registered beyond a period of 03 years which is a maximum punishment provided for an offence under Sections 7 and 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975, the prosecution of the petitioners is barred as per provisions of Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. which provides a bar to take cognizance after a lapse of 03 years period of limitation. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that for the purpose of commencement of period of limitation as per provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the period in relation to an offence shall commence on the date of the offence.

3. It has further been argued by counsel for the petitioners that as per provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence on receiving a complaint of facts which constitute an offence or upon a police report of such facts. It is further submitted that the police report as defined under Section 2(r) of Cr.P.C., is a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under subsection(2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is submitted that the report which has been submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 25.01.2017 makes it apparently clear that the cognizance taken by the trial Court in the present case is barred by the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has relied upon “Janak Raj vs. State of Haryana”, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 248, where the following observations has been made by this Court:-

“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 there under 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. Along with 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) Criminal Procedure Code 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 limit