JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Ajit Singh-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.42 dated 21.3.2012 registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar for the offences under Sections 420/34 IPC read with Sections 3, 5, 8, 9, 14(2), 15, 18 and 21 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Mehtab Singh (respondent No.2) made a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar against Sardool Singh, Tarsem Singh and Karnail Singh alleging that they had made the gang of colonizers by joining hands with the owners of the land and they had cheated him. They had executed some agreements for some plots and they had given the possession of those plots orally whereas he is in possession and he made the entire payment under the agreement. During inquiry, the Police had mentioned that Ajit Singh-petitioner is owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos.52/11/1, 52/15/2, 52/2/5 and 53/10/2 as per Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 and it is also mentioned that Sardool Singh, Tarsem Singh and Karnail Singh had carved out a private colony being financiers and all the three financiers started selling the plots to different persons and these financiers earlier also carved out different colonies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no allegation in the FIR against the petitioner of any type. The petitioner has not cheated the complainant. Agreements were not executed by him nor he delivered the possession to the complainant. He argued that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. As regards the other allegations under the Act, only promoters are liable. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent State and learned counsel for the complainant argued that Ajit Singh is the original owner. In his land, the colony has been carved out. He has also directly executed its sale deeds. In this case, inquiry was also conducted by Superintendent of Police (D). There is also complaint by Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘PUDA’) against Ajit Singh. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainantCr. Misc. In his land, the colony has been carved out. He has also directly executed its sale deeds. In this case, inquiry was also conducted by Superintendent of Police (D). There is also complaint by Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘PUDA’) against Ajit Singh. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainantCr. Misc. No.M-6075 of 2013 [3] respondent No.2 further argued that all these facts, whether the petitioner carved out the colony in connivance with the other co-accused, are to be proved by way of evidence before the trial Court and at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed. They also argued that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show the involvement of the petitioner being owner of the land. They also argued that about 70 plots have been carved out from the land as per the site plan. 5. After going through the record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the FIR is registered on the basis of complaint of Mehtab Singh and in the FIR itself there are allegations against Ajit Singh. It is written in the FIR that the aforesaid accused by preparing forged site plan without the sanction of the PUDA had carved out the colony and cheated him. Some of the Khasra numbers were purchased from Ajit Singh and to save the stamp duty the sale deeds were not executed and only on the basis of agreements plots were sold. It is also averments in the complaint of complainant Mehtab Singh that Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Amritsar, has already filed application before the Police for registration of the FIR against Ajit Singh, owner of the property. There is inquiry report by the SHO in the Police file. There is also inquiry report conducted by Superintendent of Police (D). The statement of Ajit Singh was also recorded in this inquiry, where he admitted that he sold 10 Kanals 8 Marlas of land to Sardool Singh, Tarsem Singh and Karnail Singh. It is also as per his statement that these persons have carved out the residential plots and started selling the same and these persons sold 7 Kanals 15 Marlas of land to the customers regarding which he and his son Kashmir Singh got executed the sale deeds in favour of the customers. It is also as per his statement that these persons have carved out the residential plots and started selling the same and these persons sold 7 Kanals 15 Marlas of land to the customers regarding which he and his son Kashmir Singh got executed the sale deeds in favour of the customers. It is also in this inquiry report that some of the sale deeds were also got executed in favour of purchasers i.e. Sardool Singh etc. During inquiry, it was found that it was due to the connivance of Ajit Singh and his son Kashmir Singh accused, they have allowed Sardool Singh etc. to sell the property on the basis of site plan of the colony even before the execution of the regular registered sale deeds in their favour. 6. Learned Assistant Advocate General also stated that there are some of the sale deeds executed by Ajit Singh directly to Sardool Singh, Amandeep Kaur, Hardev Singh, Vikramjit Arora etc. in the Police file. From the record, I find that the investigation is still stated to be going on. All these facts are to be proved after the evidence will be led before the trial Court. At this stage, it cannot be held that no offence is made out against the present petitioner nor it can be held that it is abuse of process of law. The definition of colony under Section 2(i) of the Act is as under:- “2 (i) “colony” means an area of land not less than one thousand square metres divided or proposed to be divided into plots for residential, commercial or industrial purpose, but does not include any area of abadi deh of a village falling inside its Lal Lakir or phirny or any area of land divided of 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. As per the above definition in Section 2(i) of the Act, colony means an area of land not less than one thousand square metres divided or proposed to be divided into plots for residential, commercial or industrial purpose, but does not include any area of abadi deh of a village falling inside its Lal Lakir or phirny etc. 8. Section 2(y) of the Act defines the word ‘promoter’ which is as under:- “(y) “promoter’ means the person,- (a) who constructs or causes to be constructed a building consisting of apartments, or, converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other person, and includes his assigns; or (b) who develops land into a colony, whether or not be also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persons, all or some of the plots, whether open or with structures thereon; and (c) where the person who constructs or convert a building or develops a colony and the person who sells apartments or plot are different persons, the term includes both of them; Explanation,- (1) Any development authority and any other public body so notified by the State Government are deemed to be promoter in respect of allottees of,- (i) buildings constructed by them on land owned by them or placed at their disposal by the State Government; or (ii) plots owned by them or placed at their disposal by the State Government; Explanation,- (2) A person who acts as described in subclause (c) of clause (y) shall be deemed to be a promoter, even if,- (i) he styles himself as a builder, colonizer, contractor, developer, estate promoter or by any other name; or (ii) he claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building is constructed or colony is developed.” 9. Section 36 of the Act provides offences by promoters or estate agents, which is reproduced as under:- “36. Offences by promoters or estate agents. Section 36 of the Act provides offences by promoters or estate agents, which is reproduced as under:- “36. Offences by promoters or estate agents. - (1) Any promoter who, without reasonable cause, fails to comply with or contravenes the provisions of sections 3, 6, 9 (save as provided in sub-section (2) of this section) or section 15 shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. (2) Any promoter who contravenes the provisions of section 9 by misusing any amount advanced or deposited with him for any purpose other than the purposes mentioned in section 9, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and which may extend to five years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees and which may extend to ten thousand rupees or to the amount in respect of which the offence was committed, whichever is greater, or with both. (3) Any promoter or estate agent who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with, or contravenes, any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder, or does not pay the penalty imposed on him by the competent authority, shall, if no other penalty is expressly provided for the offence, be punished on conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Central Act of 1974), it shall be lawful for a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class to pass on any person convicted of any offence under this Act, a sentence of imprisonment or of fine or both as provided in the relevant section of this Act, in excess of his powers under section 27 of the said Code. (5) The fine imposed under sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue and out of the fine so recovered, the Judicial Magistrate may award such amount as he deems fit to the person from whom the advance or deposit was obtained by the promoter or the estate agent, as the case may be.” 10. So from the above discussion, in no way, it can be held that no offence is made out or the present proceedings, in any way, is misuse of the process of law. 11. Therefore, no ground for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings is made out. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------