MAHIPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.213 dated 25.06.2015, registered under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was registered on 25.06.2015 with the allegations that vide Memo No.311 dated 15.02.2012, the District Town Planner, Kaithal has directed the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal for initiating legal action and for registration of the FIR. However, the FIR was got registered beyond a period of 03 years. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that even the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been presented in this case on 25.01.2017 i.e. again after a period of about 1-1/2 years from the date of registration of the FIR. It is, thus, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the FIR which was registered beyond a period of 03 years which is a maximum punishment provided for an offence under Sections 7 and 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975, the prosecution of the petitioners is barred as per provisions of Section 468(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 which provides a bar to take cognizance after a lapse of 03 years period of limitation. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that for the purpose of commencement of period of limitation as per provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973 the period in relation to an offence shall commence on the date of the offence.

(3.) It has further been argued by counsel for the petitioners that as per provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence on receiving a complaint of facts which constitute an offence or upon a police report of such facts. It is further submitted that the police report as defined under section 2(r) of Cr.P.C., 1973 is a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 Accordingly, it is submitted that the report which has been submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 25.01.2017 makes it apparently clear that the cognizance taken by the trial Court in the present case is barred by the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 Counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has relied upon "Janak Raj v. State of Haryana", 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 248, where the following observations has been made by this Court:-