Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Quashing of Summoning Order Against Town Planner, Holds No Sanction or Prima Facie Case Made Out Under Prevention of Corruption Act
Case Name: Laxmi Devi v. K.K. Yadav
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CRR No. 2998 of 2011 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by the complainant challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, which had set aside the Magistrate’s summoning order against a District Town Planner accused of demanding property in exchange for official approval. Justice Inderjit Singh held that no prosecution could be sustained without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC or Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that the alleged acts were part of the officer’s official duties. The Court ruled that the mere oral allegation of demand for half of the property, unsupported by evidence or sanction, was insufficient to summon a public servant to face criminal trial.
Summary: The petitioner, Laxmi Devi, had purchased a plot measuring 8 kanals 10 marlas in Rewari and applied for Change of Land Use (CLU) permission on February 2, 2001. She alleged that K.K. Yadav, the District Town Planner, after recommending her case to the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, demanded that she transfer half of the plot to him in return for approval. When she refused, her application was rejected, and on June 7, 2002, officials including the Executive Officer, District Town Planner, and Junior Engineer, along with police, demolished her property. The trial court, on November 6, 2006, summoned the accused for offences under Sections 427, 447, 342, 34, 463, 465, 471 IPC and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
On revision, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, set aside the summoning order on August 5, 2011, holding that the acts alleged were performed in discharge of official duties and that no prior sanction had been obtained. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the petitioner’s appeal against demolition had already been dismissed by higher authorities, confirming that the construction was in violation of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. The Court also noted that the area had been declared a controlled area under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, since October 6, 1974, and that a prior notice to restore the land to its original state had been issued.
Justice Inderjit Singh held that, in the absence of sanction and substantive evidence, the trial court’s summoning order was legally unsustainable. The Court further noted that the complaint against co-accused Mahavir Kaushik had already been quashed by the High Court, reinforcing that no independent offence was made out.
Decision: Finding no error in the appellate court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated August 5, 2011, maintaining that no criminal prosecution could proceed without mandatory sanction and that the acts complained of arose from official duties lawfully performed.