Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a court cannot quash criminal proceedings by conducting a mini-trial or evaluating disputed questions of fact if the FIR and collected material prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 623 dated 20.12.2020 registered under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the allegations that the registration of the aforesaid FIR is a result of confabulation and amounts to gross abuse and misuse of the process of law.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint/memo dated 17.12.2020 was addressed by the District Town Planner, Kurukshetra to the Station House Officer, Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra alleging that the petitioner, namely Gopal Davinder Singh son of Sh. Lakha Singh, resident of Village Galedwa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, had carved out an unauthorized colony over land comprised in Khasra No. 137/21/2, 147/24/2 and 25 situated in village Galedwa (Hadbast No. 40). It was alleged that the said land falls within Urban Area, Pehowa and that the petitioner had undertaken colonization/sub-division of the land without obtaining the requisite licence from the competent authority i.e. Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh, thereby violating Sections 3 and 7(i) read with Section 2(c) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the rules framed thereunder. It was further alleged that despite the statutory prohibition, the petitioner continued with the unauthorized colonization activities and, therefore, the police authorities were requested to immediately stop the said unauthorized development, investigate the matter and register an FIR against the petitioner as well as any other persons found involved during the course of investigation. It was also mentioned that prior to presentation of challan before the competent Court, necessary sanction for prosecution under Section 11 of the Act of 1975 was required to be obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra. Pursuant to the said complaint, the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. It was argued that the petitioner had merely agreed to sell his land measuring 15 Kanals 7 Marlas in favour of Tarsem Singh and Salinder Singh through an agreement to sell dated 13.09.2019, however, the said purchasers, by citing financial constraints, got the sale deeds executed in parts and in favour of different persons. It was submitted that if any unauthorized colony has been carved out, the same has been done by the said purchasers and not by the petitioner. It was further contended that as per the terms of the agreement to sell, the petitioner was bound to execute the sale deeds in favour of Tarsem Singh, Salinder Singh or any other person nominated by them, and had he refused to do so, he would have been exposed to civil as well as criminal litigation and could also have been directed to refund double the earnest money. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate villager and was unaware of the alleged tactics adopted by the aforesaid purchasers, who allegedly got the sale deeds executed fraudulently in favour of different persons. It was also argued that at the