Chandrabhan Bind and 22 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61748

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39463 of 2024

Applicant :- Chandrabhan Bind And 22 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Archana Mishra,Hari Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Hari Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A for the State-respondent.

¶7

By means of the present application, applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 8.6.2021 in Case Crime No.0026 of 2021, under Sections 147, 186, 188 IPC and 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, Police Station Pawai, District Azamgarh and its cognizance order dated 4.7.2022 of the aforesaid case and also entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.9680 of 2024 (State vs. Sanjay Nishad and others) arises from aforesaid case crime n. 0026 of 2021 under the aforesaid sections.

¶8

Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 24.2.2021 bearing Case Crime No.0026 of 2021 was lodged by S.H.O, P.S. Shahpur District Gorakhpur/opposite party no.2 in pursuance of Sections 147, 186, 188 of IPC, 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 against applicants alleging that applicants and other co-accused has encroached illegally over some part of Gata No.493 situated at Village Jaldipur, District Azamgarh which is recorded in the name of Marghat . The applicants had, 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 charge-sheet on dated 8.6.2021 against applicants whereupon learned court concerned took cognizance/summoning of offence vide order dated 4.7.2022 which impugned the present petition.

¶9

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,

¶10

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. The Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Sections 147, 186, 188 of IPC, 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013.

¶11

In any case, the question as to whether applicants had illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha, 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 opposite party no.2 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 applicant.

¶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

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 only in pursuance to Section 3/5 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 order dated 4.7.2022 in pursuance only to Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. The continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance only to

¶15

Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, 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.

¶16

Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of C.R.P.C, proceedings of the Case Crime no. 0026 of 2021, Police StationPawai, District Azamgarh only in pursuance to Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 is hereby quashed in respect of applicants herein. However, learned court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.26, Azamgarh/concerned court is directed to proceed in pursuance to Sections 147, 186, 188 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 against the applicants.

¶17

The instant application stands partly allowed .

¶18

Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Rakesh

¶19

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

Chandrabhan Bind and 22 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan Bind and 22 Others 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