VIJAY KUMAR GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.211 dated 11.05.2015 under Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short 'Act of 1975'), registered at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were owners of land comprised in khewat No.741 khatoni No.1049, khasraNos.4045, 4058, 4060, 4061, 4062 and 4063, situated within the Revenue Estate, Narnaul and from 01.04.2011 to 24.08.2011, they had sold the land to 16 persons, detail of which is given in para No.3 of the petition. It is further submitted that the District Town Planner, Narnaul, vide its letter memos dated 03.12.2013 and 06.12.2013, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul for taking action against the petitioners. Thereafter, the impugned FIR was registered on 11.05.2015.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the maximum punishment provided under Section 10 of Act of 1975 is 03 years, the Court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, as the FIR was registered beyond a period of three years. Learned counsel has relied upon Section 468 (1) Cr.P.C, wherein it is provided that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified under sub-section (2) after the expiry of period of limitation. As per sub-section (2) of Section 468 Cr.P.C, period of limitation shall be (a) 6 months if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; and (c) three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Under Section 469 Cr.P.C, it is provided that period of limitation in relation to an offender shall commence (a) on the date of offence; or (b) where the commission of offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or (c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. Section 473 Cr.P.C. provides for extension of period of limitation in certain cases. It has been provided that any court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do, in the interest of justice.