Dismissed

Prabhat Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024A482/22285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for encroachment on public property. The court held that factual questions were unfit for summary jurisdiction and the prima facie evidence established violation of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge-sheet and summoning order dismissed.

Prabhat Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:127122

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22285 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Agnivesh,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused material on record.

¶7

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 06.03.2022 and summoning order dated 08.09.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 484 of 2023, titled as State v. Prabhat Kumar, arising out of Case Crime No. 689 of 20212, under Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, P.S. Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant of the case. No encroachment, as stated in the FIR, has been done by the applicant. The matter is purely civil dispute. Because of enmity, the name of the applicant has been figured. The impugned order is patently illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law and thus, liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per-contra , learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submits that on perusal of record, it transpires that ingredients of Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are made out against the applicant. The applicant was erecting wall on

¶10

the public land, which was evacuated by the police, despite that applicant was time and again repeating the same offence, which forced the informant to register FIR against the applicant.

¶11

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and 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. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Perusal of record and on examination of document placed before the Court, its prima-facie observed that the applicant has encroached public property illegally, which satisfies the requirement of Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Keeping in view the illegal encroachment on public land, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

¶13

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 7.8.2024 A. Tripathi

¶15

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prabhat Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Kumar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases