Sursati Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135558

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34680 of 2024

Applicant :- Sursati Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Shrawan Kumar Pandey 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 entire proceeding of Case No.14430 of 2024 (State vs. Sursati Devi and another), which is arising from the impugned cognizance order dated 21.08.2024 over the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer on 09.03.2024 in Case Crime No.0028 of 2024, under Section 504, 506 IPC and 3/5 Prevention of the Damages to the Public Property Act 1984, Police Station Sinduriya District Mahrajganj, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Pravar Khand), Maharajganj.

¶8

Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 10.02.2024 bearing Case Crime No. 0028 of 2024 was lodged by Lekhpal, Tehsil Sadar/opposite party no.2 in pursuance to Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against applicants.

¶9

As per instructions so received in pursuance to order dated 4.7.2025, which is taken on record, clearly shows that there is hardly any encroachment and the drainage is free from any encroachment as alleged through narration of the First Information Report which culminated into chargesheet and whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicants have challenged the chargesheet as well as cognizance/summoning order on several other ground inter-alia precisely on the ground that lodging of the first information report taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions cannot be

¶11

invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or loss caused to the Gram Sabha land. The Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Section 3/5 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

¶12

In any case, the question as to whether applicants had illegally erected wall over Arazi No.613 area 0.016 hectare and created obstruction over chaknali, 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 Revenue Lekhpal of the village concerned is nothing but with a view to harass the applicants.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 cognizance/summoning

¶16

order dated 10.7.2023 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. 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 proceeding of Case No.14430 of 2024 (State vs. Sursati Devi and another), which is arising from the impugned cognizance order dated 21.08.2024 over the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer on 09.03.2024 in Case Crime No.0028 of 2024, under Section 504, 506 IPC and 3/5 Prevention of the Damages to the Public Property Act 1984, Police Station Sinduriya District Mahrajganj, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Pravar Khand), Maharajganj is hereby quashed in respect of applicants.

¶18

The instant application stands allowed .

¶19

However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the revenue authorities concerned to proceed against applicants, if required, in accordance with the strict provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Rakesh

¶20

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

Sursati Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sursati Devi and Another v. State of U.P. 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