Dismissed¶12

Rampher v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2022A482/19898/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. rejected; quashing of charge sheet refused; Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984; Section 3 PDPP Act; Section 2 PDPP Act; encroachment of public property; mischief; charge sheet dated 24.10.2017; cognizance order dated 20.9.2018; case crime No. 1379 of 2017; case No. 4747 of 2018; Judicial Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar; P.S. Bakhira; removal of encroachment after notice not a ground for quashing; Rampher; Justice Sameer Jain; Allahabad High Court; order dated 13.5.2022.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of the FIR and the statements recorded during investigation shows that the applicant encroached upon public property fully covered under Section 2 of the Act, and therefore a prima facie offence under Section 3 of the Act stands disclosed against the applicant. ¶11

Rampher Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19898 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rampher Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijendra Kumar Mishra,Pravesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Kant Ojha, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

By way of filing present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., applicant prays for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 24.10.2017 as well as cognizance order dated 20.9.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar and entire proceeding in case No. 4747 of 2018 arising out of case crime No. 1379 of 2017, under Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present case relates to the provisions of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (in short, the Act) and the charge sheet against him has been filed under Section 3 of the Act. On merit, he argued that without any proper investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicant as applicant never damaged any public property and this allegation which is made in the FIR that the applicant damaged the public property is totally false and there is no evidence on record and also during investigation, no such evidence is collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant. He further submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, learned AGA received instructions and as per his instructions now there is no encroachment of the applicant on the land in question and, therefore, no offence under Section 3 of the Act is made out against the applicant and charge sheet filed against him is bad.

¶8

Learned AGA submitted that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he illegally possess the public property and was using it and that the public property was described as the land of Section 132 which fully covers under Section 2 of the Act and further, the act done by the

¶9

applicant by encroaching the public property clearly discloses offence under Section 3 of the Act as an encroachment over the public property falls under the definition of mischief used in Section 3 of the Act and, therefore, prima facie offence under Section 3 of the Act is made out and charge sheet submitted against him cannot be quashed. It is further submitted that if after notice, applicant removed his encroachment then it cannot be said that he did not commit any offence under Section 3 of the Act.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶11

Perusal of the FIR and the statement recorded during investigation shows that the applicant encroached the public property which is fully covered under Section 2 of the Act and, therefore, prima facie allegation discloses offence under Section 3 of the Act against the applicant and further, if any encroachment later on, removed by the applicant then also impugned chargesheet filed against him cannot be quashed on this ground.

¶12

Accordingly, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is hereby rejected .

¶13

Order Date :- 13.5.2022 Ankita

¶14

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.18 10:27:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rampher v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampher v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Chauhan Vs State of U.P and Another

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another