JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint No. RBT 796 dated 12.6.2004 titled as ‘PUDA vs Bhagat Kaur’ (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure P3) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Section 38 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), no prosecution can be launched against any person except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. The property in question was situated at Amritsar. As per the notification dated 10.9.1998, the Additional Chief Administrator was the competent authority to grant sanction with regard to the District Amritsar. In the present case, the sanction for prosecution had been granted by the Additional Chief Administrator, Jalandhar. Hence, the complaint in question could not proceed. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 5. The case of the respondent, as per complaint Annexure P1, in brief, is that the Bhagat Kaur was the owner of the land in question situated in Tehsil and District Amritsar. Bhagat Kaur had executed the general power of attorney in favour of Tarlok Singh. Special Power of attorney had been executed by Bhagat Kaur in favour of Gurinder Singh. Bhagat Kaur, Tarlok Singh and Gurinder Singh had divided the land in question which was more than 1000 sq.meter into plots for developing the colony. 6. The trial Court, vide order dated 23.4.2002 (Annexure P2), summoned the petitioner and his co-accused to face the trial. Petitioner moved an application for his discharge and the same was declined by the trial Court vide order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure P5). A perusal of order (Annexure P5) reveals that the proceedings qua the accused Bhagat Kaur and Gurinder Singh stood abated. 7. Section 38 of the Act reads as under:- “Prosecution and composition of offences.-(1) No prosecution for any offence punishable under this Act shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the competent authority or any person authorised in this behalf by the competent authority. 7. Section 38 of the Act reads as under:- “Prosecution and composition of offences.-(1) No prosecution for any offence punishable under this Act shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the competent authority or any person authorised in this behalf by the competent authority. (2) The competent authority may, either before or after the institution of the proceedings for prosecution, compound any offence punishable by or under this Act subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed. (3)Where an offence has been compounded, the offender, if in custody, shall be released and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of the offence compounded”. 8. Thus, as per the above provision, no prosecution with regard to the offence punishable under the Act can be instituted except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. Annexure P3 is the notification issued by the State on 10.9.1998. A perusal of the same reveals that the Additional Chief Administrator, Amritsar has been notified as the competent authority for District Amritsar and Gurdaspur. However, in the present case, the sanction for prosecution was granted by the Additional Chief Administrator, Jalandhar. A perusal of the order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure P5) also reveals that the sanction for prosecution in the present case had been granted by the Additional Chief Administrator, Jalandhar. A perusal of the said order does not reveal that the Additional Chief Administrator Jalandhar had been given some additional power to exercise jurisdiction qua the District Amritsar also. 9. In these circumstances, criminal proceedings against the petitioner can not continue for want of valid sanction for prosecution. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint No. RBT 796 dated 12.6.2004 titled as ‘PUDA vs Bhagat Kaur’ (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising thereto including the summoning order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure P3) are quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------