GURU DEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code') seeking quashing of FIR No. 405 dtd. 14/9/2016, registered under Ss. 10 and 7A of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short the Act, 1975') at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on a complaint Lodged by the District Town Planner (Enforcement Faridabad) alleging therein that Sai Estate through its partners Hem Raj Gupta, Jai Parkash, Sher Singh and Raj Kumar were the owners of land measuring 23 Kanals 11 Marlas in the Revenue Estate of Village Tikawali, District Faridabad by virtue of sale deed No.7809 dtd. 7/8/2015 and sale deed No.10061 dtd. 11/9/2015. The said land falls in the urban area of Faridabad. It was alleged that said Sai Estate through its partners sub-divided the land in the shape of illegal colony by laying road/passages unauthorizedly on the land in violation of Sec. 7(i) of the Act. It was further alleged that the accused persons further sub-divided the land into residential plots without obtaining necessary licenses from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. After completion of investigation, challan against the said four accused, who were named in the FIR, namely Hem Raj Gupta, Raj Kumar, Jai Prakash and Sher Singh, who were partners in the aforesaid firm, was filed before the Court concerned. Thereafter, supplementary challan qua the present petitioner and one Krishan Kumar Alawadhi was presented with the allegations that they, being retired Tehsildar and the then Tehsildar, Faridabad, respectively, had violated the provisions of Sec. 7A of the Act, 1975 by registering sale deeds No.8760 dtd. 25/8/2015 and 8229 dtd. 28/10/2016 as executed by the Sai Estate, without obtaining required No Objection Certificate' from the concerned department.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused persons, namely Hem Raj Gupta, Raj Kumar, Jai Prakash and Sher, who faced full length trial, had been acquitted by the trial Court from the charges framed against them, vide judgment dtd. 2/8/2022. On the same set of allegations, the conviction of the petitioner is highly unlikely. It is further argued that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner and co-accused Krishan Kumar Alawadhi was applied by the department concerned on 24/11/2020 to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C., which means it was sought after expiry of a period of more than 04 years from the date of registration of the FIR. It is submitted that offence under Sec. 7A is punishable under Sec. 10 of the Act, 1975 and the maximum sentence provided for the said offence, is 03 years. Then the attention of this Court has been drawn towards Sec. 468 of the Code, as per which, no Court can take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation and that the period of limitation for any offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding 01 year but not exceeding 03 years, is 03 years. Learned counsel further contends that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was sought on 24/11/2020, which means that the period of 03 years had already elapsed much prior to even seeking the sanction by the prosecution under Sec. 197 of the Code. A reference is made to the order dtd. 28/2/2024 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-5294-2021, whereby the FIR in question has been quashed qua co-accused Krishan Kumar Alawadhi keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances. It is submitted that necessary sanction has still not been obtained. Hence, it urged that the FIR in question deserves to be quashed as the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.