Jagdev and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50609

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25320 of 2024

Applicant :- Jagdev And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred to quash the chargesheet no. 1 dated 30.07.2023 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 4915 of 2023 (State vs. Jagdev and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2023, under sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 447 of IPC, P.S. Uldan, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Mauranipur, Jhansi as well as to stay the further proceedings of abovementioned case.

¶8

Brief facts of the present case are that the Village Pradhan namely, Akhilesh Rawat and some other persons made complaint against the applicants regarding illegal possession over Gata No. 1860 having area 0.405 hectare in which the applicants have constructed the houses and bada before S.D.M., Mauranipur on 02.06.2023. In pursuance of complaint dated 02.06.2023 made by Pradhan and others, the Lekhpal/opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report dated 08.07.2023 bearing Case Crime No. 105 of 2023 in pursuance of Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against applicants. The applicants have, thus, caused damage and loss to the public property which is the land vested in Gram Sabha. After lodging of the FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer started inquiry and after conclusion of the same, preferred chargesheet no. 1 dated 30.07.2023 against applicants which impugned the present petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants has challenged the chargesheet on several other ground inter-alia precisely on the ground that lodging of the first information report taking aid of provisions of

¶10

the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions cannot be invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or loss caused to the Gram Sabha land. As far as the allegations of commission of offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 I.P.C. is concerned, it is contended that no such offence can be made out from the allegations in the first information report as even the date of entry of the applicants over the Gram Sabha land has not been indicated.

¶11

In any case, the question as to whether applicants have illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha, recorded as Chakroad, can only be adjudicated by the Revenue Authorities. The proper proceeding for eviction of the unauthorized occupant can be undertaken under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006. The short-cut procedure adopted by the Lekhpal of the village concerned is nothing but with a view to harass the applicants.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments raised by learned counsel for applicants.

¶13

While dealing with similar issue, co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order 6.8.2020 passed in Application u/s 482 no. 9964 of 2020 (Munshi Lal and Another vs. State of U.P. and another) , quashed the entire proceeding u/s 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and held that as far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to Gram Sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court. As far as the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is concerned, the same has been enacted with the specific purpose. the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act shows that it was enacted with a view to curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion.

¶14

As far as the allegation of criminal offence under Section 447 IPC to constitute criminal trespass, the prosecution has to prove and the Court has to return a finding on the evidence that the trespass was committed with one of the intents enumerated in Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has, thus, not only to allege but also to prove that the entry or unlawful occupation must be with an intent; (i) to commit an offence; or (ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the property". Every 'trespass' by itself is not criminal. In absence of

¶15

any such finding, the conviction under Section 447 IPC cannot be sustained. The offence under Section 447 IPC though is cognizable but is also a compoundable offence triable by any Magistrate, trial of which has to be conducted summarily. A charge under this section should specifically state intent which is alleged. The accused may lay a bonafide claim and right in the land in question. Although he may have no right to the land but he cannot be convicted of criminal trespass unless it is proved by the prosecution that he did so with an intention to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession or to commit an offence. The complainant need not be necessarily a person in actual physical possession of the land in question on the date of entry of the trespasser, i.e. the accused person. He may be a person to whom the land in question belonged or deemed to have been vested. The person who actually owns the land or property is the competent person to lodge the complaint.

¶16

From perusal of the records, it transpires that present case is squarely covered with the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Munshi Lal (supra) and as such the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants pursuant to Section of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, cannot but be said to be an abuse of the process of law or the Court. The continuation of criminal proceedings, in the considered opinion of the Court, being an abuse of process of the Court, ends of the justice requires that the said proceedings be quashed.

¶17

Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the High Court, entire proceedings of the Case No. 4915 of2023 (State vs. Jagdev and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2023, under sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 447 of IPC, P.S. Uldan, District Jhansi is hereby quashed only in respect of applicants namely, Jagdev, Jaichandra and Brij Bihari.

¶18

The instant application stands allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 #Vik/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagdev and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Himanshu Pradhan vs State of U.P.

Smt Suman and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Smt Swati and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Zoya and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harshita Singh Gurung and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravi Tiwari Alias Ravi Shankar Tiwari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another