Crl. Misc. No. M-17760 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17760 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 4, 2010 Parkash Vir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. JS Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, has been filed by Parkash Vir Singh for quashing FIR No. 730 dated 9.12.2008 registered at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal, under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act No.1 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and all subsequent proceedings. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner and Shanti Devi were the owners of land measuring 16 bighas 10 biswas out of total land measuring 33 bighas, situated in the revenue estate of village Kasba, Karnal, Hadbast No. 1, Tehsil and District Karnal. Out of that land, 7 bighas i.e. 140/660 share was sold by the petitioner and Shanti Devi, vide Crl. Misc. No. M-17760 of 2009 2 sale deed dated 7.2.2005 in favour of Sudarshan Jain, Zile Singh and Rajesh Kumar, for consideration of Rs. 14,60,000/-. Zile Singh subdivided that land into plots for residential/industrial purposes and sold the same to different persons. About that act of Zile Singh, FIR No. 502 dated 23.8.2005 was registered in Police Station City, Karnal, under Sections 7 and 10 of the Act. Thereafter, the above said FIR was registered against the present petitioner on the basis of the memo dated 12.9.2005, written by the District Town Planner, Karnal, to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal. It was narrated therein that the petitioner and Shanti Devi subdivided 33 bighas of agricultural land into plots for residential/industrial/commercial purposes without obtaining the licence from the Director, Town and Country Planning, under Section 3 of the Act and those were sold in contravention of Section 7 (1) of the Act and the same constitutes offence under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner has challenged the FIR and the subsequent proceedings on the ground that the allegations in the FIR are incorrect. It was Zile Singh who sub divided the land into plots, against whom the FIR had already been lodged before the registration of the present FIR. This FIR has been lodged after 3 years and 10 months of the FIR registered against Zile Singh, on account of political reason. It is an abuse of process of the Court. On notice of motion having been issued, the respondents put in appearance and filed their independent replies. They pleaded therein that the petitioner without obtaining the licence from the Director, Town and Country Planning Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Director'), sub- divided the land into plots. That allegation was found to be correct during Crl. Misc. No. M-17760 of 2009 3 the investigation. The petitioner and Shanti Devi were owners of 330/660 share in the land measuring 33 bighas situated in the revenue estate Kasba Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal, which falls within the urban area of Karnal and out of the same 16 bigha and 10 biswas in Khewat No. 433/439, was jointly sold by them to the above named three persons, thereby violating Section 7 (1) of the Act, as the area of the land was more than 1000 square meters and it was covered within the definition of “Colony” contained in the Act. In fact, they sold 1 bigha 8 biswas land in favour of Sudarshan Singh, 2 bighas and 16 biswas in favour of Zile Singh and 2 bighas and 16 biswas in favour of Rajesh Kumar. Therefore, there was subdivision of the land measuring 5927 square meters. The petitioner and said Shanti Devi further continued to sell the land out of their shares, in violation of the provision of Sections 3 and 7 (1) of the Act, by executing sale deed for an area of 1 bigha 10 biswas in favour of Jarnail Singh. It was on account of the violation of the provisions of the Act that FIR has been registered against the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the contents of the FIR, it cannot be said that any such offence has been committed by the petitioner under Sections 7 or 10 of the Act. It cannot be concluded from the contents thereof that the petitioner contravened any of the provisions of the Act. He, alongwith Shanti Devi, sold one chunk of land without dividing the same into plots or otherwise. Therefore, there was no question for obtaining the licence by the petitioner. He also submitted that the period of limitation for filing the FIR/complaint was three years and that period commenced from the date of execution of Crl. Misc. No. M-17760 of 2009 4 the sale deed itself, which was a public document and was a notice to respondent No.2. Even if it is assumed that the commission of the offence came to the notice of the complainant after registration of the FIR against Zile Singh, even then it cannot be said that the complaint has been filed within limitation. That FIR was registered on 23.8.2005, whereas the present FIR was registered on 9.12.2008. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment in Ram Chander and another versus State of Haryana 1994 HRR, 224. On the other hand, it was contended by the counsel for the respondents that the intention of the petitioner is reflected from the sale deed itself, which was executed in favour of the three persons, to whom separate parcels of land were transferred. That intention of the petitioner is further clear from the fact that one of those vendees; namely, Zile Singh, further sub-divided the land, so purchased by him and sold it to different persons. The act of the petitioner amounts to the carving of a “colony” which he could not have done without first obtaining the requisite licence from the Director. The offences under Sections 7 and 10 of the Act are clearly made out from the contents of the FIR. There is no ground for quashing the FIR on the ground of limitation, which is a disputed question of fact and is to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be produced before the trial Court. The first question to be determined is, whether any offence is made out on the face of the FIR in question ? According to Section 2 (c) of the Act, the “colony” means an area of land divided or proposed to be divided into plots or flats for residential, commercial, industrial, cyber city Crl. Misc. No. M-17760 of 2009 5 or cyber park purposes or for the construction of flats in the form of group housing or for the construction of integrated commercial complexes. According to Section 7 of the Act, no person shall without obtaining a licence under Section 3, transfer or agree to transfer in any manner plots in a colony. Section 10 of the Act deals with the penalty. According to that section, any person who contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder 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. It is to be seen from the contents of the sale deed executed by the petitioner and Shanti Devi if they carved out a colony within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act. That sale deed has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P/3. They had not sold the plots or parcels of land in favour of three vendees, namely, Sudershan Jain, Zile Singh and Rajesh Kumar. They sold 7 bighas land, which was their 140/660 shares in 33 bighas, in favour of those three vendees. Their shares in that land were 28, 56 and 56 respectively. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the land was divided by the petitioner into plots or he proposed to divide the same into plots. It is mentioned in the title of the sale deed itself that it is the sale of agricultural land. Thus, the land was being transferred for agricultural purpose and not for residential purpose. No doubt, one of the vendees, namely, Zile Singh, sub-divided the land, so purchased by him, by carving out the plots and selling the same to different persons. That act of the vendee cannot be attributed to the petitioner and he cannot be made liable for the acts of that vendee. He was Crl. Misc. No. M-17760 of 2009 6 not required to see that the land was being used for the purpose for which he sold the same. No person can be made liable for the criminal act of the other, unless otherwise provided by law. There is no such provision in the Act which may make the petitioner liable for the acts of Zile Singh. No offence is made out against the petitioner from the contents of the FIR. The sale deed, in question, was executed by the petitioner and Shanti Devi on 7.2.2005, whereas the present FIR was registered on 9.12.2008. The alleged offence under Section 10 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment upto three years. Therefore, as per the provision of Section 468 of the Code, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of that offence is three years. The FIR itself was registered after the expiry of that period, after execution of the sale deed. The question to be determined is, from which date the period of limitation to be computed ? A similar question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Punjab State versus Dharmpal Seth 2000 HRR 384. It was held therein that the sale deeds are registered with the Sub-Registrar. It is a public authority. The parties spend money on stamps. The document is presented before a public authority. The information is immediately available to the State Government. The complaint having been filed after the period of three years was held to be beyond the period of limitation. That ruling makes it clear that the period is to be computed from the date of execution of the sale deed itself. Even if for argument's sake, it is assumed that the period of limitation was to be computed from the date on which the commission of the offence came to the notice of the complainant, even then it cannot be held that this FIR was registered within the period of limitation of three years. Zile Singh sub-divided the land so purchased by Crl. Misc. No. M-17760 of 2009 7 him from the petitioner into plots, thereby constituting a “colony”. In respect of that offence, FIR No. 502 was registered against him on 23.8.2005. Thus, the complainant had come to know about the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner by that date. Even then the FIR in question was registered on 9.12.2008 i.e. after the expiry of the period of three years. It was held in Ram Chander's case (supra) that where the FIR has been filed beyond the period of three years, the same is liable to be set aside by virtue of Section 468 of the Code. In view of my above discussion, I conclude that the present FIR and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly this petition is hereby accepted, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed. May 4, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE