Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
-1-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. Criminal Misc. No. M-51514 of 2007
M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
2. Criminal Misc. No. M-880 of 2010
Arvinder S.Brara ....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
Date of Decision:- 3.5.2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Argued by:- Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate.
Mr.A.S.Chadha, Advocate
Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate
Mr.Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate
Ms.Jaishree Thakur, Advocate
Mr.C.S.Rana,Advocate
Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate
Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
Mr.Jaivir Yadav, Advocate
Mr.Ravinder Kumar Rana, Advocate
Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate
Mr.Suneesh Bindlesh, Advocate
Mr.Vikram Choudhary, Advocate
Mr.Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr.Pankaj Katia, Advocate
Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate
Mr.Anil Malik, Advocate
Mr.Rajiv Kataria, Advocate
Mr.S.K.Panwar, Advocate
Mr.Deepak Balyan, Advocate
Mr.Neelesh Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr.Kapil Sharma, Advocate
Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate &
Mr.Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for the respondent.
-2-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide all the cases of petitioners-accused (developers), depicted in Schedule A and those of subsequent vendees/transferees, mentioned in Schedule B (attached herewith), by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the relevant facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions, extracted from main petitions (1) CRM No. M-51514 of 2007 titled as "M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board" of Schedule 'A' and (2) CRM No. M-880 of 2010 titled as "Arvinder S.Brara Vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board" of Schedule 'B', would be referred in subsequent part of this judgment for ready reference in this context.
2. Exhibiting the deep concern of degradation of environmental indiscipline, adversely affecting the humanity at large, the United Nations Organization (U.N.O.) convened an International Conference on human environment w.e.f. 5th to 16th of June, 1972 at Stockholm, in which, the Indian delegation led by the Prime Minister of India participated as well. Inter-alia, the gist of the proclamation/resolution adopted in the Conference, in substance, is as under:-
"1. Man is both creature and moulder of his environment which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has been reached when through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power, to transform his environment in countess ways and on an unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the man made, are essential to his well being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights - Even the right to life itself.-3-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
2. The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world, it is the urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all Governments.
3. Man has constantly to sum up experience and go on discovering, inventing, creating and advancing. In our time man's capability to transform his surroundings, if used wisely, can bring to all peoples the benefits of development and the opportunity to enhance the quality of life. Wrongly or heedlessly applied, the same power can do incalculable harm to human beings and the human environment. We see around us growing evidence of man-made harm in many regions of the earth; dangerous levels of pollution in water, air, earth and living beings; major and undesirable disturbances to the ecological balance of the biosphere; destruction and depletion of irreplaceable resources; and gross deficiencies harmful to the physical, mental and social health of man, in the man-made environment; particularly in the living and working environment.
A point has been reached in history when we must shape our actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their environmental consequences. Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment on which our life and well-being depend. Conversely, through fuller, knowledge and wiser action, we can achieve for ourselves and our posterity a better life in an environment more in keeping with human needs and hopes. There are broad vistas for the enhancement of environmental quality and the creation of a good life. What is needed is an enthusiastic but calm state of mind and intence but orderly work. For the purpose of attaining freedom in the world of nature man must use knowledge to build in collaboration with nature a better environment. To defend and improve the human environment for present and future generations has become an imperative goal for mankind a goal to be pursued, together with, and in harmony with, the established and fundamental goals of peace and of world-wide economic and social development.
To achieve this environmental goal will demand the acceptance of responsibility by citizens and communities and by enterprises and institutions at every level, all sharing equitably in common efforts. Individuals in all walks of life as well as organizations in many fields, by their values and the sum of their actions, will shape the world environment of the future. Local and National Governments will bear the greatest burden for large-scale -4- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) environmental policy and action within their jurisdictions. International co- operation is also needed in order to raise resources to support the developing countries carrying out their responsibilities in this field. A growing class of environmental problems, because they are regional or global in extent or because they affect the common international realm, will require extensive co- operation among nations and action by international organizations in the common interest. The Conference calls upon the Governments and peoples to exert common efforts for the preservation and improvement of the human environment, for the benefit of all the people and for their posterity."
3. Sequelly, the assignment of 22nd April of every year as live clean and live green Earth's (Mother's) Day by the UNO, is another step in this direction. In order to fulfill the International commitment, the Parliament has amended and introduced the Articles 48-A & 51-A in the Constitution of India. Likewise, it enacted The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for brevity "the Act of 1974"); The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short "the Act of 1981"), The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and framed the rules thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1986 & the relevant rules").
4. The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petitions and emanating from the record, is that the complainant-Haryana State Pollution Control Board respondent (in short "the complainant-Pollution Board") claimed in the complaint (Annexure P20) that the Central Government has issued the Notification dated 7.5.1992 (Annexure P5) and imposed a prohibition/ban qua the activities/operations/processes as indicated therein. Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment, Government of India issued yet another Notification dated 29.11.1999 (Annexure P11), by means of which, the powers to accord environmental clearance was delegated to the State Government. The issuance of Aravali notification, all kind of directions, bans, restrictions and prohibitions were duly published for the knowledge of general public, so that, no -5- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) one could involve in any prohibited activities, which may entail punitive action under the said notifications. In view of Aravali Notification, an inspection committee was constituted and as per the inspection conducted by the committee, it revealed that M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, its sister concern and officers (developers) (petitioners-accused in Schedule A) have developed a complete Township in the name & style of 'Aravali Retreat' with a total area, approximately of 1200 acres of land after demolishing the Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad), situated within the revenue estate of village Raisina, District Gurgaon. They have totally changed the nature of Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad), carved out individual farm houses in complete violation of the provisions of the Act of 1986 and sold the same to the subsequent vendees-accused-petitioners, in cases mentioned in Schedule B. All that was claimed to have been done by the petitioners-accused after the commencement of the Notification dated 7.5.1992 (Annexure P5). Consequently, show cause notices dated 15.3.2006 (Annexure P15) & 15.6.2007 (Annexure P18) were issued, to which, they filed the replies dated 28.3.2006 (Annexure P16) & 7.7.2007 (Annexure P19), taking the false plea of construction of Farm houses before the commencement of notification (Annexure P5).
5. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, according to the Pollution Board that the land in question was described as Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad) in the revenue record. The provisions of The Punjab Land Preservation Act (in short "the PLPA Act"), 1900 were applicable on reserved forest of land in dispute. The petitioners-accused (in cases mentioned in Schedule A) have totally destroyed the Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad) and converted it into Farm houses in complete violation of the Aravali Notification and illegally allotted to the petitioners-accused (in cases indicated in Schedule B). Thus, they have degraded the Aravali Hills, damaged their fragile -6- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) ecology, after the commencement of notification (Annexure P5), did not comply, violated the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1986, Aravali Notification and rendered themselves liable to be prosecuted in this relevant direction. In the background of these allegations, the complainant-Pollution Board filed the complaint (Annexure P20) against all the petitioners-accused for the commission of offence punishable under section 15 read with Section 19 of the Act of 1986 in the manner depicted hereinabove.
6. Taking cognizance of the complaint and considering the preliminary evidence, the Presiding Officer, Special Environment//Trial Court summoned the petitioners-accused to face the trial for the commission of the offences in question, by virtue of impugned summoning order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P22).
7. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of Special/Trial Court, the petitioners-accused, in all the cases, straightway jumped to file their respective petitions to quash the impugned complaints, summoning orders and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, leaving this Court in deep lurch to collect the grain from the bundles of chaff and to think twice, as to what extent, the finding should be recorded with regard to the controversy raised in the instant petitions, as the same would naturally have the direct bearing on the real issues between the parties, to be determined by the trial Court, during the course of trial. Be that as it may, but in the interest of justice, the principle of "safety saves" has to be kept in focus, while deciding these petitions. That is how I am seized of the matter.
8. The case set up by the petitioners-accused, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the PLPA Act is applicable to the State of Haryana, including the land in litigation. The petitioners M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & others developed the area, measuring about 1200 acres in an around 1988-89, made un-cultivable land (Banjar Qadeem) into cultivable land of village Raisina, -7- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) District Gurgaon, after obtaining the sanction under the provisions of The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act,1963 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1963") and the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for brevity "the Act of 1975"), vide letter dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure P2) and have sold the Farm houses, by way of agreement/allotment document, sample of which is annexed as Annexure 1/B. The lists and status of development works were stated to have been sent to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana by the developers, by means of letters dated 14.5.1991 (Annexure P4), 29.6.1993 (Annexure P9) and (Annexures P19/A to P19/C). It was alleged that the land in question was depicted as Gairmumkin Farm houses in the revenue record (Jamabandi/Khasra Girdawari (Annexure P6/T colly) & Aksh-Sizra (Annexure P21). As such, the provisions of notification (Annexure P5) are not applicable. The Director, Town & Country Planning informed the petitioners-accused to take permission from the department, through the medium of letter dated 15.4.1998 (Annexure P10), as per the terms & conditions of the sample agreement dated 18.5.2000 (Annexure P12). The State Government did not constitute a legal/valid committee under the provisions of the Act of 1986. It was alleged that the Regional Officer of the Pollution Board issued show cause notices (Annexures P15 & P18) to the Company, to which, it filed the replies (Annexures P16 & P19), alleging that it had consciously developed the area without applying for and obtaining the prior required sanction and environment clearance.
9. The case of the petitioners-accused further proceeds that the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India informed the plot owners that in case the plot is a farm house, then the notification (Annexure P5) was not applicable, by virtue of letter dated 1.11.2006 (Annexure P17). The petitioners- accused further set up the plea in the rejoinder that as per the Notification dated -8- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) 10.11.1980 (Annexure P24), site plan (Annexure P25), report dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P27) of District Revenue Officer, Memo No.756 dated 2.4.2010 (Annexure P28) of Tehsildar, letter dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure P29) of Pollution Board and report dated 4.1.2011 (Annexure P30) of Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, the Developers have already carved out the Farm houses, after obtaining the requisite permission from the other competent authorities. In this manner, they claimed that they have already completed the development work after obtaining the sanction under the Acts of 1963 and 1975 and since the land in dispute has been described as Gairmumkin Farm houses in the revenue record, so, the provisions of notification (Annexure P5) were not applicable to their case. The Pollution Board was stated to have filed the false complaints against them as they have not committed any offence whatsoever. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, all the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned complaints, summoning orders and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, in the manner indicated hereinbefore.
10. The complainant-Pollution Board refuted the prayer of the petitioners-accused and filed the reply, by way of affidavit of Dr.C.V.Singh, Scientist, its Regional Officer, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the petition, cause of action, locus standi & non-joinder of Central/State Governments and department of Forest and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited etc. as necessary parties. It has relied upon the judgment (Annexure R1) of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case M.C.Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. I.A.Nos.1901 & 1888 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4677 of 1985. All the relevant judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court were stated to have been sent to the concerned authorities for implementation, vide letter dated 23.5.2008 (Annexure R2). The sub-committee constituted under the Act of 1986 submitted the report (Annexure R3), demonstrating the violations of different provisions by the -9- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) petitioners-accused. As per the report dated 4.12.2006 (Annexure R4) of the Patwari and report dated 7.9.2005 (Annexure R5) of the Tehsildar, the land in litigation was recorded as Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad). According to the Pollution Board, as soon as, the Collector, Gurgaon received the information that the then Halqa Patwari, illegally changed the revenue record and entered in the Khasra Girdawari, the kind of land as Gairmumkin Farm houses, instead of factual position of Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad), immediately, he (Collector) directed all the circle revenue officials to correct the entries in the Khasra-Girdwari of Arvali Mountain as Gairmukin Mountain (Pahad), by means of order dated 23.2.2006 (Annexure R6). Consequently, the records were accordingly corrected.
11. According to the Pollution Board, all the petitioners-accused have changed the nature of the land after the commencement of the notification (Annexure P5), committed the indicated offences under sections 15 & 19 of the Act of 1986 and no ground for quashing the impugned complaints, summoning orders and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is made out under section 482 Cr.PC. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the complainant-Pollution Board has reiterated all the allegations contained in its complaint. However, it will not be out of place to mention here that it has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petitions and prayed for their dismissal.
12. Assailing the impugned complaints & summoning orders and taking the benefit of their usual ability, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners- accused (in cases mentioned in Schedule-A) have contended with some amount of vehemence that it stands proved on record that the petitioners-accused (developers) have already changed the nature of the disputed land from Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad) to Gairmumkin Farm Houses, after obtaining the sanctions dated -10- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) 29.1.1990 (Annexure P2), 5.4.1991 (Annexure P3), 29.6.1993 (Annexure P9), 15.4.1998 (Annexure P10) and 9.2.2001 (Annexure P12-A), in pursuance of applications dated 25.10.1989 (Annexure P1), 14.5.1991 (Annexure P4), 11.5.1993 (Annexure P7) & 7.6.1993 (Annexure P8) and it was so described in the revenue record (Jamabandi/Khasra Girdawari (Annexure P6/T colly) & Aksh-Sizra (Annexure P21), much prior to the commencement of the notification dated 7.5.1992 (Annexure P5). Therefore, the petitioners-accused have not committed any offence.
13. Likewise, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the remaining petitioners-accused subsequent vendees/transferees (depicted in Schedule B) have also adopted the same line of arguments as submitted on behalf of the developers. However, additionally, they have submitted that assuming for the sake of arguments, the developers have violated the provisions and committed the offences in question, even then, the subsequent vendees/transferees cannot be prosecuted as they are bona fide purchasers. Hence, they have sought the quashment of the impugned complaints & summoning orders in this relevant direction.
14. Hailing the impugned complaints and summoning orders, on the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant-Pollution Board have vehemently urged that all the petitioners-accused have raised disputed questions of facts and relied upon the copies of certain letters, purported to have been issued by the Tehsildar, Director, Town & Country Planning and other irrelevant authorities, which require a legal proof. So, the impugned complaints and summoning orders cannot be quashed on the basis of such unproved letters at this initial stage. Raising a variety of arguments, in all, the Pollution Board claimed that as all the petitioners-accused have committed the indicated offences, therefore, no ground for quashing the impugned complaints and summoning orders by this Court, in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.PC is made out. Hence, -11- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) they prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length, having gone through the relevant material on record and legal position with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petitions in this context.
16. At the very outset, it cannot possibly be denied here that the Hon'ble Apex Court has authoritatively held, in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92, that the criminal prosecution can only be quashed in rarest of rare case at the initial stage as per the following conditions:-
(i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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.
(ii) 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 S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.
(iii)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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 a -12- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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."
17. Not only that, again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Jeffery J.Diermeier & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2010(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 183, having interpreted the scope of section 482 Cr.PC, has ruled (para 16) as under:-
"16. Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The Section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice."
18. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that realizing the importance of the prevention and control of pollution for human existence and considering the importance of protection and improvement of environment, Article 48-A was introduced in the Constitution of India, which envisages that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country." Likewise, Article 51-A (g) further mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
-13-CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
19. Sequelly, the Parliament has passed the Acts of 1974, 1981 & 1986. The Act of 1986 was brought into force throughout the India w.e.f. 19.11.1986. Section 3 of this Act confers power on the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. 'Environment' includes water, air and land and the inter- relationship which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property. Section 3(2)
(iv) authorizes the Central Government to lay down standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from various sources whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law but subject to the provisions of the said Act, the Central Government may under Section 5, in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under that Act issue directions in writing to any person, officer or authority and such authority is bound to comply with such directions. The power to issue directions under the said section includes the power to direct the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process or stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water of any other service. Section 9 imposes a duty on every person to take steps to prevent or mitigate the environmental pollution. Section 15 contains provisions relating to penalties that may be imposed for the contravention of any of the provisions of the said Act or directions issued thereunder. The Central Government has framed the relevant rules as well in this regard.
20. Not only that, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1986 read with rule 5 of the relevant rules, the Central Government has issued a notification dated 7.5.1992 (Annexure P5), prohibiting the carrying on the following processes and operations, except with its prior permission, in the areas specified in the Table appended in it:- -14- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
i) Location of any new industry including expansion modernization;
ii) (a) All new mining operations including renewals of mining leases,
(b) Existing mining leases in sanctuaries/national Parks and areas covered under Project Tiger and/or
(c) Mining is being done without permission of the competent authority.
(iii)Cutting of trees;
(iv)Construction of any cluster of dwelling units, farms houses, sheds, community centres, information centres and any other activity connected with such construction (including roads a part of any infrastructure relating thereto);
(v)Electrification (laying of new transmission lines).
21. As per Table of the Notification (Annexure P5), carrying on the process and any kind of operations without permission is totally prohibited, inter- alia, in the following areas:-
i. All reserved Forests, protected forest or any other area shown as forest in the land record maintained by the State Government as on the date of this notification in relation of Gurgaon District of Haryana and Alwar District of State of Rajasthan, ii. All areas shown as :
a. Gair Mumkin Pahar, or b. Gair Mumkin Rada, or c. Gair Mumkin Behed, or d. Banjad beed, or e. Rundh In the land records maintained by the State government as on date of this notification in relation to Gurgaon District of State of Haryana and the Alwar District of State of Rajasthan.
iii.All the areas covered by Notification issued u/s 4 & 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1919 as applicable to the State of Haryana in the District of Gurgaon up to the date of Notification.
iv. All areas of Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972).
Similarly, the other specified activities are also prohibited in the agricultural land in the following area :-
a (i) topography of the area indicating gradient, aspect & attitude.
(ii) Erodability classification of the proposed land.
b. Pollution sources existing within 10 km. Radius c. Distance of the nearest National Pak/sanctuary/Biosphere -15- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) Reserve/Monuments/heritage site/Reserve Forest;
d. Rehabilitation plan for Quarries/borrow areas;
e. Green belt plan.
f. Compensatory afforestation plan.
22. Such thus being the statutory legal position and material on record, now the short and significant questions, though important that, arise for determination in these cases are, as to whether all the petitioners-accused have committed the pointed offences and they are liable to be prosecuted, by means of impugned complaints or not ?
23. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative in this connection.
24. As is evident from the record, that the Pollution Board has prosecuted all the petitioners-accused for the commission of offence punishable under section 15 of the Act of 1986, which postulates that "whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made or orders or directions issued thereunder, shall, in respect of each such failure or contravention, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention. If the failure or contravention referred to in sub-section (1) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years." Sections 16 and 17 deal with the offences committed by the companies and Government departments. Section 2(a) of the said Act defines that the 'environment' includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, -16- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) plants, micro-organism and property. Section 2(b) envisages that "environmental pollutant" means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment. Section 2(c) provides that "environmental pollution" means the presence in the environment of any environmental pollutant.
25. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case M.C.Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. 2008(6) JT 542 (Annexure R1) has, inter-alia, ruled as under (para
12) :-
"In view of the notification under Section 4 when the clearing or breaking up of the land is not permitted that itself is a bar from fresh construction because a construction only can take place if clearing and breaking of an area/land taking place. This prohibition is clearly contained in the notification of 1992. The reliance placed by the applicants on clause (g) is clearly misconceived, inasmuch as the permissible activity allowed within clause (g) is in favour of inhabitants of town and villages within the limits or vicinity of any such area. The admitted case is that the applicants herein have developed plots in the area in question and have sold it to persons who are not inhabitants of towns and villages within such specified living area, but could be anybody from all over the country or outside and therefore clause (g) in Section 4 has no application. The factum of developing a plot and then construct therein would amount to clearing or breaking up of an area or land."
26. The definite and clear case of the Pollution Board is that the Conservator of Forests has apprised and directed all the Divisional Forest Officers of South Circle, Gurgaon by name to implement the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in letter and spirit, through the medium of letter dated 23.5.2008 (Annexure R2).
27. A conjoint and meaningful reading of the indicated provisions of the Act of 1986 and relevant rules would reveal that whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made or orders or directions issued thereunder, shall be liable for punishment under this section. -17- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) Supplementing the provisions of the Act of 1986 as per the notification dated 7.5.1992 (Annexure P5), if any person is carrying on the processes and operations in any manner, without the prior permission of the Pollution Board in the manner depicted therein and in all reserved forests, protected forests or any other area shown as forest in the land records maintained by the State Government as on the date of this notification in relation to Gurgaon District of State of Haryana and Alwar District of State of Rajasthan and all areas shown as Gairmumkin Pahad, Gairmumkin Behend, Banjad Beed or Rundh, then he is liable to be punished under the provisions of this Act and the Notification (Annexure P5).
28. Meaning thereby, the petitioners-accused have not only violated the constitutional mandate and specific directions, but have also violated the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the notification (Annexure P5) with impunity. They have completely failed to comply with and contravened the provisions of the said Act, relevant rules, notification, orders & directions issued thereunder after the commencement of Notification (Annexure P5), in the manner discussed hereinabove. Therefore, their action squarely falls within the domain and ambit of offence punishable under section 15 of the Act of 1986.
29. Ex facie, the contentions of learned counsel for petitioners-accused that it stands proved on record that as the petitioners-accused (developers) have already changed the nature of the disputed land from Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad) to Gairmumkin Farm Houses, as per the sanctions (Annexures P2, P3, P9, P10 & P12-A)), in pursuance of applications (Annexures P1, P4, P7 & P8) and it was so recorded in the revenue record (Annexures P6/T colly & P21), much prior to the commencement of the Notification dated 7.5.1992 (Annexure P5) and as all the essential ingredients of the pointed offences are not pleaded in the complaint (Annexure P20) and other complaints, therefore, they did not commit any offence, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well and deserve to be repelled for -18- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) more than one reasons.
30. At the first instance, it is not a matter of dispute that since the provisions of PLPA and Forest Acts are applicable and the land in dispute was recorded as Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad), so, the provisions of the Act of 1986 and Notification (Annexure P5) were fully applicable at the relevant time in the present cases. Secondly, there are direct allegations in paras 10 to 18 of the impugned complaint (Annexure P20) that the petitioners-accused (developers) have changed the nature of the Mountain (Pahad), after developing the area allotted to various other persons and the entire exercise was done after the issuance of notification (Annexure P5). The show cause notices (Annexures P15 & P18) were issued to them. The committee was constituted. The mere fact that there is some irregularity in formation of the committee, will not advance the cause of petitioners-accused to quash the criminal prosecution, as contrary urged on their behalf. The committee examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the developers have changed the nature of the disputed land and developed the infrastructure for the cluster of 630 Farm houses, out of which 108 Farm houses had been constructed and allotted in violation of the provisions of Aravali Notification by laying the roads, water supply, electricity, berms, barbed wires, fencing and separate gates etc. after the commencement of the notification (Annexure P5). Even the electricity connections were obtained by the allottees after the issuance of this notification.
31. Therefore, all the essential ingredients of the indicated offences are complete. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and others (1999) 3 SCC 259 has held that "it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or -19- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage."
32. Above-all, Section 19 of the Act of 1986 posits that "no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the competent person mentioned therein." The word "complaint" has been defined under section 2(d) of Cr.PC to mean that any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown has committed an offence.
33. Meaning thereby, the direct allegations are assigned to the petitioners-accused in the complaint (Annexure P20) & other complaints that they have violated the provisions of the Act of 1986 and committed the pointed offences after the commencement of the notification (Annexure P5). The solitary fact that the developers have informed the Director, Town and Country Planning and other irrelevant authorities under the different Acts, before the issuance of the said notification, is not at all a cogent ground to quash the impugned complaints and summoning orders, because they have not obtained any requisite prior approval/sanction from the competent authority and violated the provisions of the Act of 1986, for which, they have been prosecuted.
34. Similarly, the next feeble argument of learned counsel that since the land in question was described as Gairmumkin Farm houses in the revenue record, so, the petitioners-accused did not commit any offence, again lacks merit. Again, it is not a matter of dispute that the land in dispute situated in village Raisina was depicted as Aravali Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad) in the revenue record from the very beginning. Concededly, the developers have got changed the kind of land from Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad) to Gairmumkin Farm houses. If any Patwari without any legal authority had made the stray entries in the Khasra Girdawari -20- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) (Annexure P6/T colly) for some consideration and for the reasons best known to him, which were illegal & without any authority and further carried out in the column of Jamabandi (Annexure P6/T colly) and Aksh Sizra (Annexure P21), then, such stray and illegal entries are non est, void and are not sufficient to hold that the land in litigation was Gairmumkin Farm houses. Such entries deserve to be outrightly ignored and kind of land in dispute (Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad)) would remain the same for all intents and purposes in this relevant behalf.
35. As indicated earlier, as soon as, this mistake was noticed, the Collector, vide its letter dated 23.2.2006 (Annexure R6) directed all the circle revenue officials to correct the Girdawari of Aravali Mountain as Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad) as per the spot. Hence, the mere stray and illegal entries made by a Patwari in the revenue record against the factual position, cannot possibly be termed to be sufficient to hold that the land in question was not Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad). No implicit reliance can be placed on such void and non-est entries. In this manner, the observations in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Construction of Park At Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary v. Anand Arya & Another with T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. 2011(1) SCC 744, relied on behalf of petitioners-accused, are not at all applicable to the facts of the present cases.
36. Likewise, there can hardly be any dispute that the Acts of 1963 & 1975 operate altogether differently in their respective domain/fields. The purpose, aims, object, scope, jurisdiction, area, manner of operation, ambit, action and remedies of these Acts are entirely different and are not at all relatable in any manner to the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the notification (Annexure P5). Therefore, the letters (Annexures P2, P3, P9, P10 & P12-A) written by the Director, Town & Country Planning, Executive Engineer, Electrical Inspectorate, Haryana etc. under the different Acts and the alleged clarification made by the -21- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) Additional Director of the Central Government, vide letter dated 1.11.2006 (Annexure P17) (in CRM No.M-51514 of 2007) & (Annexure P12) in (CRM No. M-880 of 2010) and reports of the Patwari/Tehsildar (irrelevant authorities), ipso facto, are not at all sufficient to wipe out the criminal liability/offences committed by the petitioners-accused under the Act of 1986 and notification (Annexure P5), particularly when it is not yet clear/proved that they were legally competent/authorized to issue such clarification in this respect.
37. As is clear that in case Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley and others (2011) 3 SCC 351, relied on behalf of the petitioners-accused, the complainants (therein) were interested in business relationship with Rifa Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of bio-ceramic products. The complainants, for the orders they had placed, issued demand drafts in favour of the Company. The company did not deliver the products ordered by the complainants and accordingly they asked the Company for return of their money. Accordingly, for and on behalf of the Company, in discharge of the existing liability, an account payee cheque was issued but the cheque was returned by the complainant's banker on presentation with the endorsement "insufficient funds". The complainant then sent legal notice asking the accused persons to pay the amount of cheque within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice but despite service of notice, no payment was made. Thereafter, they filed the complaint under Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
38. The principal contention canvassed was that the appellant (therein) was appointed as Director of the Company on 27.8.2003. He resigned from the directorship on 2.3.2004, which was accepted by the Board of Directors on that day itself with immediate effect. The factum of his resignation was also recorded in Form 32 filed by the Company with the Registrar of Companies on 4.3.2004. The impugned cheques were issued on behalf of the Company to the complainants, -22- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) much after his resignation. So, on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "it is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents, which are beyond suspicion or doubt, placed by the accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, then those documents can be considered for the purpose of quashing the criminal prosecution."
39. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners- accused in the present controversy. In the instant case, the petitioners-accused have not produced any such public document, which is per-se admissible in evidence and sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings under the Act of 1986. As discussed hereinabove, the letters, purported to have been written by the other irrelevant authorities, which, otherwise, require a legal proof, are not at all relevant to decide the instant controversy between the parties to quash the criminal prosecution at this initial stage. All the documents brought on record by the petitioners-accused are alien/foreign to the instant controversy between the parties under the Act of 1986 in this relevant connection.
40. As to whether the Pollution Board has filed the false complaints against the petitioners-accused, whether the developers have demolished the Gairmumkin Mountain (Pahad) and converted it into Gairmumkin Farm houses after the publication of Notification (Annexure P5), whether the authorities under the Acts of 1963 and 1975, Forest Act or the Additional Director (Environment) have actually granted the clarifications under some authority or otherwise, what -23- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) would be the effects of such clearance under the other Acts on the commission of offence under the Act of 1986, whether the impugned area falls within the radius of 10 kilometers, all other conditions of Notification (Annexure P5) have been violated or not and all other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence (now sought to be urged on their behalf), would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court, after receiving the respective evidence of the parties. In case, the admissibility, validity & genuineness or otherwise of these documents and other relatable facts, which require determination by the trial Court, are to be decided by this Court in the garb of petitions under section 482 Cr.PC, then the sanctity of the trial would pale into insignificance and amount to nullify the statutory procedure of trial as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not legally permissible.
41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Dr.Bhupendra Kumar Modi and another (2009) 2 SCC 147 has ruled that "when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court could not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it the accusation would not be sustained. To put it clear, it is the function of the trial Judge to do so. The High Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution."
42. Faced with this grave situation, the learned counsel for petitioners- accused (subsequent vendees) (in cases mentioned in Schedule B) then raised another cosmetic submission that in case, it is proved that the developers have violated the provisions and committed the indicated offences, even then, the subsequent vendees/transferees cannot be prosecuted in that regard, as they are bona fide purchasers. At the very outset and first instance, the argument appeared -24- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) somewhat attractive, but when it was legally and deeply analyzed, then, I cannot help observing that the same sans merit as well.
43. As is apparent that Section 2(n) of Cr.PC defines the word "offence" to mean that any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. The offence/Acts done also extend to illegal omissions (under section 32 IPC). The act of omission and offence have been defined under Sections 33 & 40 of IPC. Section 35 of IPC postulates that "whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention." According to sections 36 to 38 of IPC, wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence. When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence and they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.
44. That being the statutory/legal position, the bare reading of these provisions would go to show that where the element of a particular knowledge or a particular intention enters in the composition of a crime, all the co-accused are liable for the same offence. It provides that where several persons are concerned in committing an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge and whosoever assists in the commission of such offence, each of such persons, who joins in the act with such knowledge is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge. In that eventuality, the criminal law only concerns to the result of the commission of -25- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) offence and not to the means by which it has been achieved and whosoever cooperates in the cumulative result of the commission of such offence is equally liable in this relevant behalf.
45. As indicated hereinabove, the subsequent vendees have purchased the offence proned Farm houses from the developers, after the commencement of Notification (Annexure P5). Not only that, after the purchase even they did not comply with and contravened the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the Aravali Notification as well with impunity. They even did not obtain the requisite permission from the competent authority under the relevant Act till today. In this manner, all the rights and liabilities were also transferred to them for all intents & purposes. The acts committed by the subsequent vendees/transferees are so intermingled and mixed with the same series of the acts and transactions, of the offences committed by the developers and since the acts of these petitioners, culminating into the offences, are still continuing, so, their cases cannot possibly be segregated from the criminal offences committed by the developers. Therefore, they cannot escape the criminal liability in any manner and are liable to be legally punished, as contemplated under Sections 35 to 38 of IPC as well.
46. The last celebrated contention of learned counsel for all the petitioners-accused that the trial Court did not apply its judicial mind while summoning them, again is not tenable. The perusal of the summoning order (Annexure P22) would reveal that while taking cognizance of the complaint, the trial court has duly considered all the relevant documents/evidence and then came to the definite conclusion that prima facie, the accused have committed the offence and summoned them to face the trial under Section 15 of the Act of 1986. The summoning order is in deep consonance with the Sections 202 to 204 Cr.PC and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s Mohan Meakins Ltd. and others 2000(3) SCC 745, wherein, -26- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) it was ruled as under (para 6):-
"6. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court it has been pointed out that the legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons vide Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 407 : 2000(1) SCC 722. The following passage will be apposite in this context:
"If there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work ? The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all (sic) causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages, the snail- paced progress of proceedings in trial Courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages of the trial."
(Emphasis supplied)
47. Not only that, Sections 202 to 204 Cr.PC posit that at the stage of summoning, all that Magistrate has to see is whether or not there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" against the accused. The Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence so meticulously as he is required to do during the course of trial of main case. The standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in scrutinizing the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges.
This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.
48. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme -27- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) Court in case Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary & Ors. 2010(7) SCC 578, wherein the view taken in case Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 134 was reiterated and observed (paras 11 & 12) as under:-
"11. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry." (emphasis supplied)
12. The use of the word `shall' in proviso to Section 202(2) is prima facie indicative of mandatory character of the provision contained therein, but a close and critical analysis thereof along with other provisions contained in Chapter XV and Sections 226 and 227 and Section 465 would clearly show that non examination on oath of any or some of the witnesses cited by the complainant is, by itself, not sufficient to denude the concerned Magistrate of the jurisdiction to pass an order for taking cognizance and issue of process provided he is satisfied that prima facie case is made out for doing so. Here it is significant to note that the word `all' appearing in proviso to Section 202(2) is qualified by the word `his'. This implies that the complainant is not bound to examine all the witnesses named in the complaint or whose names are disclosed in response to the order passed by the Magistrate. In other words, only those witnesses are required to be -28- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) examined whom the complainant considers material to make out a prima facie case for issue of process. The choice being of the complainant, he may choose not to examine other witnesses. Consequence of such non- examination is to be considered at the trial and not at the stage of issuing process when the Magistrate is not required to enter into detailed discussions on the merits or demerits of the case, that is to say whether or not the allegations contained in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. He is only to see whether there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."
Hence, no illegality or procedural irregularity can be assigned to the impugned summoning order (Annexure P22) as well, in this relevant context, as (contrary) urged on behalf of all the petitioners-accused.
49. Therefore, if the non-compliance of constitutional mandate, directions, contraventions of mandatory provisions of the Act of 1986, Notification (Annexure P5) and the totality of the facts & circumstances oozing out, from the record, as discussed hereinabove, are put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that prima facie it stands proved on record that all the petitioners-accused have committed the indicated offences. If the petitioners-accused have not stopped the pointed violations, adversely affecting the environmental atmosphere and the criminal prosecutions are quashed at this initial stage, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the public at large in general and to the case of complainant-Pollution Board in particular respectively. The Bench mark and essential ingredients for quashing the criminal prosecution at the initial stage set out in Ch.Bhajan Lal, Som Mittal and Jeffery J.Diermeier's cases (supra) are totally lacking in these cases. Thus, the contrary arguments of learned counsel for all the petitioners-accused "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances, as the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present cases and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
-29-CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
50. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
51. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trials of all the complaints, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed as such in the obtaining circumstances of the cases.
52. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits, during the trials of the main complaints, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions under section 482 Cr.PC. Since the matter is very old, so, the trial Court is directed to take all the effective steps, including day to day proceedings for expeditious disposal of all the complaints in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to send the copies of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith for compliance.
53. At the same time, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Special/Trial Court on 4.6.2012 for further proceedings.
3.5.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No
-30-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions) SCHEDULE-A (DEVELOPERS)
1. CRM No. M-51514 of 2007 M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
2. CRM No. M-52034 of 2007 M/s Ansals Housing & Construction Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent SCHEDULE-B (SUBSEQUENT VENDEES/TRANSFEREES)
1. CRM No. M-880 of 2010 Arvinder S.Brara ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
2. CRM No. M-28992 of 2010
Soumya Lyenger & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
3. CRM No. M-5254 of 2010
Shiv Mohan Mehra ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
4. CRM No. M-6819 of 2010
Ashok Tuli ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-31-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
5. CRM No. M-22442 of 2010 Rahul Jain ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
6. CRM No. M-12715 of 2010 C.P.Kukreja Associates Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
7. CRM No. M-17044 of 2010
Madhu Chawla ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
8. CRM No. M-30150 of 2010
Vijay Kumar Rewal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
9. CRM No. M-30660 of 2010
Kishore Hemlani ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
10. CRM No. M-30474 of 2010
Rajinder Rai & Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
11. CRM No. M-27151 of 2010
Neeraj Bharara ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
12. CRM No. M-13034 of 2010
Mrs.Raj K.Gupta ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-32-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
13. CRM No. M-13172 of 2010 Anita Badhwar ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
14. CRM No. M-13173 of 2010
Kapil Singla ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
15. CRM No. M-13225 of 2010
Punit Singla ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
16. CRM No. M-16539 of 2010
Anita Suhag ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
17. CRM No. M-16540 of 2010
S.N.Saran ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
18. CRM No. M-16541 of 2010
Anita Suhag ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
19. CRM No. M-1697 of 2010
Arvinder S. Brara ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-33-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
20. CRM No. M-17973 of 2010 Rajesh Vats ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
21. CRM No. M-22489 of 2010
P.S.Atree ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
22. CRM No. M-25439 of 2010
Munish Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
23. CRM No. M-26519 of 2010
M/s D & A Stores ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
24. CRM No. M-26560 of 2010
Parkash Chandra ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
25. CRM No. M-26968 of 2010
Vikas Rathee ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
26. CRM No. M-26646 of 2010
Ritu Mehta ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
27. CRM No. M-26804 of 2010
Sunil Kalra ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-34-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
28. CRM No. M-27267 of 2010 Ajay Birbal Kapoor & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
29. CRM No. M-27710 of 2010
Pushpa Pangtey & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
30. CRM No. M-27765 of 2010
Pushpa Pangtey & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
31. CRM No. M-28672 of 2010
Surender Pradhan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
32. CRM No. M-29455 of 2010
Guneet Dhillon ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board .Respondent
33. CRM No. M-31213 of 2010
Dr.Upendra Kaul ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ..Respondent
34. CRM No. M-31214 of 2010
Rajinder Rai & Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
35. CRM No. M-31215 of 2010
Nitin Naraini Beri & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-35-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
36. CRM No. M-4143 of 2010 Ash & Company & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
37. CRM No. M-31379 of 2010
K.D.Khanna ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
38. CRM No. M-31586 of 2010
Ashok Vohra ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
39. CRM No. M-31597 of 2010
Raman Singh Sidhu ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
40. CRM No. M-31623 of 2010
Ashok Kumar Rajput ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
41. CRM No. M-31662 of 2010
Umesh Malik ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
42. CRM No. M-33188 of 2010
Rattan D.Arjun & Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Ors ...Respondents
43. CRM No. M-34219 of 2010
Smt.Shobha Tuli . ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-36-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
44. CRM No. M-34585 of 2010 Anil Kumar Luthra ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
45. CRM No. M-34622 of 2010
Sunil Luthra ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
46. CRM No. M-34623 of 2010
Sushil Gupta ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
47. CRM No. M-35561 of 2010
M/s PPN Properties ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
48. CRM No. M-35574 of 2010
Chander Shekhar ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
49. CRM No. M-35892 of 2010
Deepta Gupta & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
50. CRM No. M-37013 of 2010
Tarsem Chand Gupta ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
51. CRM No. M-37083 of 2010
Sunita Marwah & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-37-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
52. CRM No. M-37084 of 2010 Surinder Bindra ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
53. CRM No. M-3966 of 2010
Jyotirmay Daw ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
54. CRM No. M-4002 of 2010
Muninder Pal Singh Nanda & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
55. CRM No. M-4669 of 2010
Capt. Vijay Malik (Retd.) ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
56. CRM No. M-4895 of 2010
Namita Mehta ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
57. CRM No. M-5408 of 2010
Jamuna Krishnan ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
58. CRM No. M-33098 of 2010
Rattan D.Arjun & Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Ors. ...Respondents
59. CRM No. M-5410 of 2010
Nirmal Kumar Jain ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-38-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
60. CRM No. M-5440 of 2010 Prateek Srivastava ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
61. CRM No. M-6078 of 2010
Raj Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
62. CRM No. M-6087 of 2010
Sharad Mohan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
63. CRM No. M-6568 of 2010
Paramvir Puri & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
64. CRM No. M-6569 of 2010
Sanjay Mittal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
65. CRM No. M-6571 of 2010
K.K.Nanda ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
66. CRM No. M-6820 of 2010
Jeevan Mohan ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
67. CRM No. M-8034 of 2010
Gulshan Rai Jain ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-39-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
68. CRM No. M-14318 of 2010 Smt.Vijay Ravi Khanna ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Anr. ...Respondents
69. CRM No. M-26656 of 2010
Ajit Singh Chauhan ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
70. CRM No. M-6570 of 2010
Prasannjeet Ganguly ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
71. CRM No. M-8117 of 2010
Gulshan Rai Jain ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
72. CRM No. M-8781 of 2011
Kuldip Sahdev & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region, Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
73. CRM No. M-8422 of 2011 Sanjay Wadhwa ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Ors. ...Respondents
74. CRM No. M-12330 of 2011
Shyam Sunder Sethi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region, Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent -40- CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
75. CRM No. M-15850 of 2011 J.L.Khanna & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
76. CRM No. M-17409 of 2011
Mrs.Sharda Agarwal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
77. CRM No. M-17224 of 2011
Mukul Chandra Agarwal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Ors. ...Respondents
78. CRM No. M-17131 of 2011
Sunil Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
79. CRM No. M-17250 of 2011
Vijay Malik & sons ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
80. CRM No. M-15869 of 2011
Anjalee Parkash ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
81. CRM No. M-7705 of 2011
Vinod Sehgal & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
82. CRM No. M-3830 of 2011
Rajeev Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-41-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
83. CRM No. M-5666 of 2011 Inder Mohan Grover & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
84. CRM No. M-6131 of 2011
A.R.Salins ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
85. CRM No. M-2750 of 2011
Praveen Juneja ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
86. CRM No. M-22048 of 2011
Anil Kumar Batra & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondents
87. CRM No. M-23350 of 2011
Mohinder Singh Grover ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
88. CRM No. M-31911 of 2011
Inder Bahl & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region & Ors. ...Respondents
89. CRM No. M-32966 of 2011
Saroj Teotia ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
90. CRM No. M-10675 of 2011
Narendra Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-42-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
91. CRM No. M-1721 of 2011 J.S.Mundry ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
92. CRM No. M-28579 of 2011
Kirti Khosla ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
93. CRM No. M-31262 of 2011
Arun Kumar Seth ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
94. CRM No. M-31579 of 2011
Anandi P.Sahu ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
95. CRM No. M-31904 of 2011
I.S.Lamba & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
96. CRM No. M-35328 of 2011
Karunakar Raghav & Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
97. CRM No. M-35391 of 2011
Pawan Kumar Katia & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
98. CRM No. M-36261 of 2011
Anita Mittal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-43-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
99. CRM No. M-4324 of 2011 Kapil Singla ...Petitioner Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
100. CRM No. M-4345 of 2011
Bala Juneja ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
101. CRM No. M-9657 of 2011
Puneet Singla ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
102. CRM No. M-31395 of 2011
Sunidha alias Suvidha Khanna & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Ors. ...Respondents
103. CRM No. M-39146 of 2011
Vijay Malik and sons (HUF) ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
104. CRM No. M-113 of 2012
Sachbir Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region ...Respondent
105. CRM No. M-2954 of 2012
Geetika Kalha ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
106. CRM No. M-3710 of 2012
R.B.Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
-44-
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010 (alongwith connected petitions)
107. CRM No. M-3711 of 2012 Maninder Kaur & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
108. CRM No. M-3849 of 2012
Mrs.Vibha Uppal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
109. CRM No. M-4172 of 2012
Mrs.Anjali Duggal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
110. CRM No. M-11247 of 2012
Rohit Aggarwal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board ...Respondent
111. CRM No. M-11786 of 2012
Amit K.Dilwali & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Ors. ...Respondents
3.5.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge