Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority vs Shaminder Singh

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, the petitioner-complainant Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for brevity "the complainant-PUDA") has filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against respondents-accused Shaminder Singh son of Ram Chand and others for the commission of offences punishable u/s. 36 read with sections 3, 5, 8, 9, 14(2), 15, 18 and 21 of the Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and section 120-B IPC. The trial Magistrate, with a very brief order, summoned them to face the trial for the indicated offences, by virtue of summoning order dated 17.12.2009 (Annexure P2). Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by respondent-accused Shaminder Singh against the summoning order (Annexure P2), was accepted by the revisional Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 2.2.2011 (Annexure P3).

The complainant-PUDA did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to challenge the impugned judgment (Annexure P3) of revisional Court, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

Ex facie the argument of learned counsel for petitioner-complainant PUDA that the revisional Court has committed a legal mistake to set aside the summoning order (Annexure P2) of the Magistrate, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the complaint (Annexure P1) that it has no where been mentioned as to who are the actual owners of the land in dispute, who, how, when and in what manner, they have carved out the plots and sold to whom. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that in the revenue record, the respondent and other persons have been described as co-owners and in joint possession of the land in question. As all the essential ingredients are miserably lacking, therefore, the bare reading of the complaint does not disclose the commission of any criminal offence under the Act. The trial Magistrate has illegally summoned the accused to face the trial of pointed offences in a very casual manner. It is now well settled principle of law that there must be a prima facie case/evidence on record before terming a person as an accused in a criminal case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in case Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others,

Not only that, the matter was examined by the revisional Court in the right perspective. Considering the legal provisions and material on record, the revisional Court has correctly set aside the summoning order, vide impugned judgment (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under (para 7):-

However, on the record only copy of jamabandi has been placed on record, which shows that Shaminder Singh and others are co-sharers in the agriculture land measuring 12 Kanals 2 Marlas and 13 Kanals 0 Marla. In case we go through the complaint, it has been stated that the accused in the above said Khasra numbers have proposed unauthorized colony and in that colony he has carved out plots and transferred in favour of different persons for the commercial, residential and industrial purposes. A photograph has also been attached. Although the photograph shows that one road has been carved out, but no plots have been carved out. No document in the form of any agreement or sale deeds in favour of different persons covering the area of more than 1000 sq. meters has been placed on the record to show that accused are proposing to divide these plots in the form of colony. In case there is no transfer or proposed transfer in favour of any other person, than the entire property belongs to the accused, merely by preparing a road does not mean that they have converted it into colony. The colony can be termed only in case different plots have been carved out and transferred or proposed to be transferred in favour of different persons covering area of more than 1000 sq. meters. However, counsel for the respondents Mr. S.K. Dewan, Advocate, during the course of arguments has not been able to pinpoint any document on the record, which may prove that revisionist has converted or proposed to convert the land in dispute into a colony. Therefore, when the complaint itself does not disclose that the revisionist/accused has converted or proposed to convert their land into a colony, then no prima facie case is made out in favour of the accused/revisionist. It seems that the learned trial court has simply gone through the complaint and passed the order without caring whether any prima facie case is made out and whether the property has been actually converted or proposed to be converted in the form of colony as defined under the Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not legally sustainable.

Meaning thereby, the revisional Court, after taking into consideration and appreciating the entire material on record, has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. The learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any material/ground, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment (Annexure P3) of revisional Court. Such judgment containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered in the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, u/s 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned judgment deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.