Dismissed

Udayveer Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2022A482/7577/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for allegedly damaging public property. The court held that the FIR prima facie disclosed the offence and dismissed a plea to appreciate the defence at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The application praying for quashing of the proceedings was dismissed.

Udayveer Singh and 4 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7577 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Udayveer Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

By way of filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants prays for quashing the entire proceeding of case no. 53 of 2018, under Sections 447 IPC and 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Kalan, District Sahajahanpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants have been made accused in the present case totally on the basis of false and frivolous allegation and they neither damaged any public property nor they encroached the public property in any manner. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that merely by trespassing in a public property does not attract the provisions of Section 425 IPC as it cannot be termed as a mischief and therefore, offence under Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act is not made out and without investigating this fact, in routine manner charge sheet in the present matter has been submitted and even court below in routine manner took cognizance.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that applicants entered into the public property, they trespassed the public property and harvested the crop there and also damaged the public property, therefore, their act clearly attracts the provision of Section 447 IPC and 2/3 Public Property Act and charge sheet against them has rightly been submitted.

¶9

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

¶10

There is specific allegation against the applicants in the FIR that they entered into the public property and harvested the crop, therefore, it cannot be said that they did not commit any offence and the FIR also discloses that they did mischief over the public property. The other argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants cannot be appreciated, at this stage, as the

¶11

defence taken by the applicant, at this stage, cannot be appreciated. As, prima facie, FIR and other documents on record disclose the offence under Section 447 IPC and 2/3 Public Property Act, therefore, in my opinion, proceeding and charge sheet cannot be quashed.

¶12

Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 15.7.2022 Ankita

¶14

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.20 18:42:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Udayveer Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayveer Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharanveer Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Arefin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radhey Shyam Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shambhu Tiwari and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shripat Mall and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another