The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence, as prescribed under Section 468 Cr.PC.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.561 dated 29.09.2016 under Section 10 of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 registered at Police Station Sadar, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 09 Kanal 4 Marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Bajidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The petitioner had sold this land to 04 persons namely Sh. Gagan Chawla, Rakesh Kumar, Sh. Mata Ram and Smt. Renu. The vendees purchased this land jointly for a total sale consideration of Rs.28,75,000/- (Rs.28 lacs 75 thousand) vide a registered sale deed no.1220 dated 28.04.2011.

3. Much after the execution of this sale deed the respondent no.2 allegedly sent a back dated letter dated 28.09.2016 to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra requesting therein to register an FIR under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Act, 1975 against the petitoner. Acting on the complaint of respondent no.2 an FIR bearing No.561 dated 29.09.2016 under Section 10 of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 at Police Station Sadar, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was registered against the petitioner. As per the petitioner the police registered the FIR without conducting an enquiry into the matter and without conducting any fair investigation presented the challan against the petitioner on dated 17.08.2017 and based on the report under Section 173 Cr.PC charges came to be framed against the petitioner (Annexure P-4).

4. The contention of the petitioner is that she has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. She has not carved out any plot or divided the land into plots for residential/industrial/commercial purposes. That being the position, no question of obtaining the licence under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 would arise. Since the petitioner had sold the agricultural land in the name of four persons jointly, it cannot be said that the land had been sold in the shape of plots. Further in the sale deed nowhere was it mentioned as to which area had been sold to which buyer. He further contended that there was delay of more than five years in lodging the FIR against the petitioner. The sale deed was executed on 28.04.2011. The authorities had the knowledge of the offence having been allegedly committed on 01.12.2011/13.12.2011 but the FIR came to be registered only on 29.09.2016. The report under Section 173 Cr.PC came to be submitted on 17.08.2017. He thus contended that the registration of the FIR was barred by limitation and court could not have taken cognizance of the same.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent-State has filed a reply dated 10.05.2018. As per para 4 of the said reply the contention of the State is that the sale deed had been executed in favour of four persons who were not related to each other and, therefore, though ostensibly the land was sold jointly, but in reality she had sold the land/plots to them separately but in a clandestine manner. The sale deed was registered jointly in their names just to circumvent the provisions of the HUDA Act. Thus she had contravened the provisions of Clause 7(i) of the said Act. It was further contended that it was only when the matter came to the knowledge of the respondent, that information was supplied to the police and, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the respondent no.2.

6. I have heard counsel for both the parties at length.

7. Before proceeding in the matter, it would be necessary to examine the relevant extracts of Section3, Section 7(i) and Section 10 of the Act which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

" Section 3. Application for licence (1) Any owner desiring to convert his land into a colony shall, unless exem