Punjab-Haryana High Court

Devender Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 11 April, 2023

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049643




                                                    2023:PHHC:049643

CRM-M-23578-2019                                               -1-

     (251) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-23578-2019
                                             Date of decision : 11.04.2023
DEVENDER SINGH & ANOTHER
                                                                ... Petitioners
                                    Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
                                                              ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate
            for the petitioner.
            Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Asst. A.G., Haryana.

                   ****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL)

The prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for

quashing of FIR No.357 dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) registered

under Section 10 of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban

Areas Act, 1975 at Police Station Pundri Kaithal and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings

are that a complaint dated 30.05.2011 was sent by the District Town

Planner, Kaithal to the Police for taking action against the petitioners

with the allegations that the petitioners had sub-divided the land into

plots for residential purposes without obtaining a licence from the

Director Town and Country Planning, Haryana as required under Section

3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act,

1975. The petitioners had thus sold seven plots measuring 1423 Sq.

meters and had contravened the provision of Section 7 of the said Act.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049643

2023:PHHC:049643

Based on the aforementioned allegation, an FIR No.357

dated 10.10.2016 came to be registered under Section 10 of the Haryana

Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 at Police Station

Pundri District Kaithal.

3. Subsequent thereto, after the completion of the

investigation, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted

before the Trial Court on 27.02.2018.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the

complaint is dated 30.05.2011, whereas the FIR came to be registered

only on 10.10.2016 and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was

submitted only on 27.02.2018. Therefore, in terms of Section 468

Cr.P.C., the prosecution was barred by limitation as the Court could not

have taken cognizance of the offence after 03 years of the knowledge of

the same. The explanation furnished by the State that the original

application dated 30.05.2011 had been misplaced would not in any

manner offset the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. in view of the

judgment of this Court in Janak Raj Versus State of Haryan, 2002(4)

R.C.R. (Criminal) 248.

5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel while referring

to the reply dated 27.12.2022 by way of an affidavit of Ravinder

Sangwan, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal contends that

though the original complaint is dated 30.05.2011, the said complaint

along with the attached documents were misplaced from the record due

to which the present FIR came to be registered only on 10.10.2016.

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049643

2023:PHHC:049643

Thereafter, pursuant to the conclusion of the investigation, the report

under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted on 27.02.2018. In terms of

Section 472 Cr.P.C., the offence was a continuing one and therefore, a

fresh period of limitation would begin at every moment. It is thus, his

contention that no case for quashing of the FIR and consequential

proceedings is made out as there has been no delay invalidating the

proceedings.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

considerable length.

7. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite

to refer to the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C.

Section 468 Cr.P.C, reads ad under:-

468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.-

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be-

(a) six 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;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049643

2023:PHHC:049643

offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.]

Section 10 of the Haryana Urban Development Laws, reads

as under:-

10. Penalties.-- (1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the 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:

Provided that where any of the provisions of section 9 are contravened the punishment of imprisonment shall not exceed six months.

8. A reading of the aforementioned provisions would show that

under Section 468(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 it has been

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, 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 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 the offence was not

known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer,

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049643

2023:PHHC:049643

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.