Firoj Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

The instant application has been preferred to quash the charge-sheet dated 15.09.2013, cognizance/summoning order dated 01.01.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur and non-bailable warrant dated 12.08.2025 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.300 of 2017 (State vs. Ainul Haque and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.615 of 2013, under sections 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Dildarnagar, District- Ghazipur.

¶10

Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 01.07.2013 bearing Case Crime No.615 of 2013 was lodged by opposite party no.2 in pursuance to Sections 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against applicant along with other accused alleging that they have made illegal constructions over the Gram Sabha land, which is recorded in shape of pond. 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 15.09.2013 against applicant along with other accused, whereupon learned court concerned has taken cognizance of offence vide order dated 01.01.2014, which impugned the present application.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the charge-sheet as well as cognizance/summoning order on several other grounds inter-alia precisely on the ground that lodging of the first information report taking aid of

¶12

NA528 No. 34597 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

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 Sections 3/5 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

¶15

In any case, the question as to whether applicant had illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha, recorded as public property/pond, 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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 applicant 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 01.01.2014 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. The continuation of criminal

¶19

NA528 No. 34597 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

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.

¶22

Invoking inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS of the High Court, entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.300 of 2017 (State vs. Ainul Haque and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.615 of 2013, under sections 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Dildarnagar, DistrictGhazipur, including charge-sheet dated 15.09.2013, cognizance/summoning order dated 01.01.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur and non-bailable warrant dated 12.08.2025, are hereby quashed only in respect of applicant herein.

¶23

The instant application stands allowed accordingly.

¶24

September 17, 2025 Saif

¶25

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firoj Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoj Khan 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