Allowed

Naushad and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024CRLA/2052/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal challenging cognizance and summoning in an FIR lodged by a Gram Pradhan over damage to public property, with SC/ST Act charges. The court found the FIR not maintainable since only authorities named in the U.P. Revenue Code may report such incidents, set aside the cognizance order and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.12.2023 taking cognizance and summoning the appellants set aside; appeal allowed.

Naushad and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:157968

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2052 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Naushad And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Bhushan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raghvendra Prakash

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey holding brief of Sri Chandra Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Present appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 02.12.2023 under sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, arising out of Case Crime no. 323 of 2023, FIR dated 27.08.2023 under sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC & under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Sidhari, District- Azamgarh as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 13.12.2023 in Case no. 470/2023 (State Vs. Saufiyan and others) under sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC & under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh. It is further prayed to quash/stay the proceedings of Case No. 470/2023.

¶8

The instant appeal has been preferred for challenging the order dated 13.12.2023 through which cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgarh in pursuance to sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act along with Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (in short 'PDPA Act, 1984) by way of summoning the appellants.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants sought the ground for initiation of the matter which has been lodged in shape of FIR, Case Crime no. 323 of 2023 at the behest of Gram Pradhan and the genesis of the matter relates to the damages of public property as

¶10

narrated in the FIR.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Application under Section 482 no. 9964 of 2020 decided on 06.08.2020 in which it has been held that the First Information Report, reporting an offence committed under Section 2/3 PDPA Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The concerned Magistrate has committed a patent error of law in taking cognizance of the alleged offence by passing order without application of his independent judicial mind. The charge sheet and the cognizance order summoning the appellants for alleged commission of offence under Section 2/3 of PDPA Act, 1984 are thus liable to be quashed. In the above matter, the FIR was preferred against the appellant at the behest of Gram Pradhan.

¶12

Per contra, Sri Raghvendra Prakash, submitted that the FIR can be preferred by way of lodging the same at the behest of Gram Pradhan, if any public property is being damaged by other person although he may be a resident of the same village and relied upon a judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application under Section 482 no. 436 of 2024 decided on 18.01.2024.

¶13

After careful consideration of the judgment dated 18.01.2024, it is apparent from the factual matrix which has been adjudicated by the co-ordinate Bench, wherein a suit was pending regarding the same property which was encroached by the appellant and thereafter he has been implicated in the FIR lodged by the Gram Pradhan. The judgment dated 18.01.2024 is based upon nonimpleading the Gaon Sabha, SDM or any State authority in the suit and there is also no discussion with regard to specific provision available under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which empowered the revenue authority to lodge the FIR. The Lekhpal/Gram Pradhan is only the reporting authority regarding any incident if occurred for encroachment of the public property by any of the person either he is residing in the same village or not.

¶14

After having the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, it is crystal clear that there is hardly any suit pending at the behest of appellants regarding the property which has been mentioned in the narration of the FIR and in absence of any discussion of crystal clear provision of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in judgment and order dated 18.01.2024, the same is not applicable in the instant matter.

¶15

As per the specific provisions mentioned under sections 67 and 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 it is the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or other authority or the Lekhpal concerned who is having the authority to inform the concerned Assistant Collector in the manner prescribed but in the instant matter it is the admitted fact that the Gram Pradhan himself preferred the FIR whereupon the cognizance has been taken up by learned court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgarh in all the sections along with section 3/4 of PDPA Act, 1984 which is prima facie not maintainable.

¶16

In view of the aforementioned discussions, order dated 13.12.2023 is hereby set aside. The instant appeal stands allowed accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Shaswat

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naushad and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naushad and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rais Ahmad and 5 Others vs State of Up and Another

Mumtaz and 2 Others vs State of Up

Ramayan Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rano Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdeesh Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another