Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Matadin has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated October 22, 2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad whereby charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short `the Act). The petitioner also sought quashing of order dated January 6, 2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which the above-mentioned order of framing of charge had been upheld. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was owner in possession of 7 kanals of land, which was described in the revenue record as gair mumkin pahar. The petitioner sold this land to Sh. Shivraj Bahadur Naagar and Anubhav Naagar of Faridabad through sale deed dated June 30, 1999. According to the District Town Planner (Enforcement), the petitioner had sub-divided the land into plots without obtaining a licence from the Director, Town and Country Planning which was required by Section 3 of the Act and had thereby contravened the penal provisions of the Act. District Town Planners letter dated January 17, 2001 was registered as FIR No. 86 dated January 29, 2001. After investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed. On appearance of the petitioner, charge was framed against him that he was the owner of the land and had subdivided the land into plots which he had sold to Shivraj Bahadur Naagar and Anubhav Naagar through the sale deed without obtaining a licence. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the vendees were father and son, who lived in the same house and the sale deed was in respect of only 7 kanals. Reference to sale deed Annexure P-1 confirms that sale was in respect of Khasra No. 21/2(6-0), 22/(1-0) total area measuring 7 kanals. Sale was of gair mumkin pahar for Rs. 1,31,500/-. Vendor received Rs. 30,000/- by cheque on January 7, 1999 and the balance amount by demand draft on January 29, 1999. Sale deed was executed and registered on January 30, 1999. 4. Question which arises in this case is whether there had been violation of the provisions of the Act. Definition of "colony" given under Section 2(c) of the Act is that an area of land which is divided or proposed to be divided into plots for residential, commercial/industrial purposes, is a "colony". 4. Question which arises in this case is whether there had been violation of the provisions of the Act. Definition of "colony" given under Section 2(c) of the Act is that an area of land which is divided or proposed to be divided into plots for residential, commercial/industrial purposes, is a "colony". In the present case, there has been no division of the land by the vendor- petitioner. There is a solitary sale deed which is in favour of two vendees, who are father and son and who have purchased property in equal shares. Furthermore, land has been mentioned as gair mumkin pahar. Although, it is not difficult to construct a house or set up a factory on hilly land because land can be levelled and construction carried out, yet prima facie it does not appear to be established that the land had been sold for residential, commercial or industrial purpose or the land had been divided into plots for the above purpose. 5. In Partap Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2002(3) PLR 817 it was held as under :- It will be clear that before a Colony could be deemed to have been set up, the land in question should be divided into plots or proposed to be divided into plots for use as residential or commercial purposes. The very fact that the word `plots has been mentioned clearly means that more than one plot had to be carved out before a colony could be said to have come into existence. It is clear from the FIR and the reply filed to the petition that there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner had carved out or sold more than one plot. In this situation, no colony had been set up by the petitioner by a mere sub-division of his land. 6 Since there has been no division of land into plots by the petitioner, it cannot be said that he had created a "colony". If the purchasers divide 7 kanals of land into 7 plots of one kanal each then the division can be said to have been carried out by them but not by the petitioner, who has sold a compact area of 7 kanals, which was whole and undivided. Prosecution of the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, this petition is accepted. Prosecution of the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, this petition is accepted. Charges framed against the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed.