Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 878 (PNJ)

Tara Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-02-15

SABINA

body2010
JUDMENT Sabina, J.:- Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of FIR No. 76, dated 15.2.2003, registered at Police Station Haibowal, District Ludhiana under Sections 3, 5, 7 , 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the charge (Annexure P-6) which has been framed under Section 36 of the said Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has executed three sale deeds mentioned at Sr. No.17 to 19 in the FIR and had sold area measuring 256.83 square yards out of his share. Hence, the petitioner had not violated any provision of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in titled Kirpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 26.3.2009. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed this petition. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. FIR in question was registered against the petitioner and his brother Suba Singh. Prosecution case was that both of them had created an unauthorised colony in violation of the Act. Details of plots converted into colony as described in FIR are as under:- 1. Parveen wife of Baldev Raj, area of plot 0-1-10 Registry No.21750/15.1.1999 2. Rajni wife of Surjit Singh 100 sq. yards, Registry No.22714/24.12.1999 3. Narinder Singh son of Kartar Singh 60 sq. yards Registry No.22715/24.12.1999 4. Ajaib Singh son of Ramdass 83.75 sq. yards Registry No.5732/10.8.2001 5. Ajit Kumar son of Avnash Chander 0 kanal 2-1/2 Marla, Registry No.13811/5.9.2002 6. Garib Dass son of Jiwan Ram, 110 sq. yards Registry No.20920/31.12.1997 7. Ashwani Sharma son of Som Nath 4 Biswas 4 Biswansi, Registry No.3685/19.5.1998 8. Inderjit Kaur wife of Jasvir Singh 75 sq. yards Registry No.13292/7.9.1999 9. Avtar Singh son of Sant Singh 50 sq. yards Registry No.6236/12.6.1998 10. Harbhajan Singh son of Sadhu Singh 91-2/3 sq. yards Registry No.26552/16.3.1998 11. Ramesh Kumar son of Lal Chand, 50 sq. yards, Registry No.27534/26.3.1998 12. Kalo Devi wife of Hukam Chand 100 sq. yards, Registry No.13382/6.2.2001. 13. Vinod Kumar son of Nathu Ram 50 sq. yards Registry No.3967/ 27.6.2001 14. yards Registry No.6236/12.6.1998 10. Harbhajan Singh son of Sadhu Singh 91-2/3 sq. yards Registry No.26552/16.3.1998 11. Ramesh Kumar son of Lal Chand, 50 sq. yards, Registry No.27534/26.3.1998 12. Kalo Devi wife of Hukam Chand 100 sq. yards, Registry No.13382/6.2.2001. 13. Vinod Kumar son of Nathu Ram 50 sq. yards Registry No.3967/ 27.6.2001 14. Pardip Singh son of Beant Singh 100 sq. yards Registry No. 2624/ 4.5.1998 15. Harbhajan Kaur wife of Ram Lal 50 sq. yards Registry No.23066/ 29.1.1999 16. Ghanhiya Lal son of Ramjit Yadav 20 sq. yards Registry No.20921/ 31.12.1997 17. Kulwinder Kaur wife of Naresh Kumar 56.83 sq. yards Registry No.18407/ 6.11.1999 18. Rakesh son of Ved Parkash 100 sq. yards Registry No.12139/ 24.1.2002 19. Roop Rani wife of Ashok Kumar 100 sq. yards Registry No.3743/ 23.6.2000. 6. A perusal of the copy of jamabandi placed on record (Annexure P-7) reveals that the petitioner has 67/6120 share in khasra No.587 measuring 15 kanals 6 marlas. The petitioner has specifically alleged in para 7 (xiii) of the petition that he had only executed three sale deeds and had sold area measuring 256-83 sq. yards vide sale deeds dated 6.11.1999 bearing No.18487, sale deed dated 24.1.2002 bearing No.12139 and sale deed dated 23.6.2000 bearing No.3743. The said fact has not been specifically mentioned by the State in its reply to the said para. Thus, the petitioner has executed three sale deeds out of the share held by him in the joint property. Individually the petitioner has not sold the land beyond the permissible limit of 1,000 sq. meter. Section 2 sub clause(i) defines “Colony” as follows:- “Colony:--”Colony” means an area of land not less than 1000 square meters divided or proposed to be divided into plots for residential, commercial or industrial purpose, but does not include any area of abadi deh of the village falling inside its Lal Lakir or phirny or any area of land divided or proposed to be divided. (i) for the purpose of agriculture; or (ii) as a result of family partition, inheritance, succession or partition of joint holdings not with the motive of earning profit; or (iii) by the owner of a factory for setting up a housing colony for the labourers or the employees working in the factory, Provided that there is no profit motive.” Explanation:- The term “agriculture” used in clause (i) shall include horticulture, dairy farming and poultry farming. 7. 7. The controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CRM-M No.24169 of 2003 (Supra). The petitioner has not sold the land more than the permissible limit as per the Act. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Thus, it is a settled proposition of law that where the FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence, then the same is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the FIR No. 76, dated 15.2.2003, registered at Police Station Haibowal, District Ludhiana, under Sections 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21 of the Act and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the charge (Annexure P-6) which has been framed under Section 36 of the said Act, qua the petitioner, are quashed. -------------