Disposed¶12

Pradeep and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025NA528/30738/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 528 BNSS for quashing/challenging F.I.R. under Sections 3/5, Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984; applicants allege parallel proceedings on identical grounds of illegal possession already adjudicated under Section 67, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (eviction and penalty, affirmed in appeal) and pending in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29619 of 2021 with co-ordinate Bench stay dated 11.11.2021; A.G.A. granted ten days for instructions; matter listed fresh on 11.09.2025; interim protection deferred to next date; no merits determination; single bench of Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.); decided 27 August 2025.

What the court decided

Pradeep and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30738 of 2025

¶2

Pradeep And 4 Others	.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Indra Jeet Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 77

¶4

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶5

At the very outset, it is has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that proceeding under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been initiated against the applicants, wherein specific order for eviction along with penalty has been passed by competent revenue authority, which has been preferred before appellate authority and the same has been decided against the applicants. Being aggrieved with both the adjudications made by revenue authority as well as appellate authority, the same has been put under challenged before this Court by way of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29619 of 2021, wherein co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already stayed the effect and operation of both the orders vide order dated 11.11.2021.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that once the proper legal recourse has already been adopted by revenue authority then under which circumstances applicant has been dragged into unwarranted criminal litigation by way of alleging the same grounds for carrying out illegal possession and the F.I.R. has been lodged in pursuance to sections 3/5 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶7