Sharanjit Kaur Dayal And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5817 P&H

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062089




CRM-M-18609-2023    [Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:062089]                   -1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
[241]
                                                      CRM-M-18609-2023
                                                      Decided on :01.05.2023

Sharanjit Kaur Dayal and another
                                                                           . . . Petitioners
                                          Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                                        . . . Respondents

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY


PRESENT: Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

             Mr. H.S.Sullar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for respondents No.2.
                                     ****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.184, dated 25.05.2006, registered under Section 36 of the

Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') at Police

Station Sadar, District Hoshiarpur and all the subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom including the order dated 28.09.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Ld.

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur whereby both the petitioners had been

declared as proclaimed offenders.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the FIR, in question was registered

on the report filed by Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Jalandhar, against the

petitioners and other co-accused having unauthorisedly converted the land

measuring 19 kanals 10 marlas bearing khasra no. 71//1, 10,11/1 situated at village

Khwaspur, District Hoshiarpur into an unathorised colony without obtaining the

licence from the competent authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that compounding of any

offence under Section 38 of the Act is permissible either before or after institution of

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062089

CRM-M-18609-2023 [Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:061944] -2-

proceedings for prosecution. In this regard, he adverts to an order dated 30.12.2014

passed by the office of Municipal Corporation, Hoshiarpur, Annexure P-9, to submit

that a compounding fee of Rs.1.76 lakhs was deposited, pursuant to which

regularization certificate was issued. Thus, the continuation of the prosecution based

on the FIR would be an abuse of process of law.

4. With regard to the order dated 28.09.2010 declaring the petitioners as

proclaimed offenders, learned counsel submits that the same has been passed without

complying with the mandate of Sections 105-A and 105-B of Cr.P.C., as the

petitioners are British citizens, residing in England since long. Copies of their

passports have been appended to this petition as Annexure P-3 and averments to this

effect have been made in para 4 of the petition. The report of Lambardar as also the

serving constable in relation to the proclamation proceedings, is also to the aforesaid

effect. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR in question was lodged against

seven persons, five of whom include their mother and sisters, whereas others are

Saroj Rani and Manjit Kaur. Further that their mother, namely, Surinder Kaur

Dhami, Jasjit Deo and Kulvinderjeet Dhami had preferred similar petitions i.e.

CRM-M-24090 of 2015, CRM-M-2531-2018 and CRM-M-33328-2017 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR in question. This Court vide judgments

dated 01.03.2017/18.04.2017 (Annexures P-10 (colly.) and 23.08.2022 (Annexuer P-

11), quashed the same qua them on the same grounds as have been raised in the

present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 admits to the compounding of

the offences in view of the deposit of the fee of Rs.1.76 lakh for issuance of the

regularization certificate. He further submits that in the case relied upon written

instructions had been received by him from the Additional Chief Administrator,

PUDA Jalandhar that PUDA would not pursue the criminal proceedings initiated

vide the impugned FIR.

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062089

CRM-M-18609-2023 [Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:061944] -3-

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is an admitted position that in view of the Section 38(2) of the Act,

the compounding fee amounting to Rs.1.76 lakhs was deposited by the petitioners,

pursuant to which, regularization certificate had been issued. A perusal of order

dated 18.4.2017 passed by this Court, reveals that written instructions from

Additional Chief Administration, Jalandhar Development Authority had been

received by the learned counsel for the respondent that offence being seen as

compounding in view of the fee of Rs.1.76 lakhs having been deposited towards

regularization and, as such, PUDA would not pursue criminal prosecution. Based on

the aforesaid categoric stand on behalf of complainant-PUDA, this Court in its

considered view had found that continuation of prosecution in the FIR in question

would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Consequently, the FIR was

quashed qua the co-accused of the petitioners. Once the same FIR stands quashed

with regard the co-accused, the continuation of prosecution in furtherance thereof

against the other co-accused i.e. the petitioners would also be an abuse of process of

law, particularly in view of the compounding fee of Rs.1.76 lakhs paid, the

allegation regards the colony having been carved out no longer survived.

Furthermore, the complainant-PUDA having taken a conscious decision of not

pursuing criminal prosecution, in the case filed by the co-accused, the same would

enure in favour of petitioners as well.

8. Considering the fact that on the basis of deposit of compounding fee of

Rs.1.76 lakhs as also the decision not to pursue the criminal prosecution by

complainant-PUDA, as relied upon by the learned counsel for PUDA, the FIR in

question has been quashed by this Court, thus the present petition is allowed.

Impugned FIR No.184 dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners.

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062089

CRM-M-18609-2023 [Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:061944] -4-

9. It is further observed that in view of the above, the order dated

28.09.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned JMIC, Hoshiarpur, whereby the

petitioners were declared as proclaimed offenders would also not survive.

                                                          [AMAN CHAUDHARY]
                                                                JUDGE
01.05.2023
Anjal

                       Whether reasoned/speaking?          Yes/No
                       Whether reportable?                 Yes/No




                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062089

                                        4 of 4