Ram Achal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40672 of 2024

Versus Ram Achal Yadav	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Devendra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 77

¶5

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A for the State-respondent.

¶7

By means of the present application, applicant has sought quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8185 of 2024, (State vs. Ram Achal Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2024, under Section 504 IPC and 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Police Station Saraimeer, District Azamgarh in Charge Sheet No. A 110 of 2024 dated 30.03.2024, as well as cognizance order dated 29.08.2024 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.

¶8

Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 08.02.2024 bearing Case Crime No.59 of 2024 was lodged by Gram Pradhan/opposite party no.2 in pursuance of Section 504 IPC and Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against applicant alleging that applicant has illegally encroached over Gata No.168 situated at Village Kanetha, Police Station Saraimeer, District Azamgarh which is Public land. The applicant 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 30.03.2024 against applicant whereupon learned court concerned has taken cognizance/summoning of offence vide order dated 29.08.2024 which impugned the present petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the

¶10

A482 No. 40672 of 2024

¶11

2

¶12

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 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 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

¶13

In any case, the question as to whether applicant 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 Lekhpal of the village concerned is nothing but with a view to harass the applicant.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶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 cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2024 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. The continuation of

¶17

A482 No. 40672 of 2024

¶18

3

¶19

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.

¶20

Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C of the High Court, entire proceedings of the Case Crime no. 59 of 2024, under Section 504 IPC and 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Police Station Saraimeer, District Azamgarh is hereby quashed only in respect of applicant namely Ram Achal Yadav.

¶21

The instant application stands allowed .

¶22

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

¶23

September 11, 2025

¶24

Rakesh

¶25

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶26

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

Ram Achal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Achal Yadav 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