Kadeer and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31029

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7035 of 2025

Applicant :- Kadeer & Anr. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the order dated 06.03.2020, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 16011 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.203 of 2017, under Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Bilari, District Moradabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the Lekhpal/complainant of the case. No construction on public land, as stated in the FIR, has been done by the applicants. Because of enmity, the name of the applicants has been figured. This is purely civil dispute which can be adjudicated only by the competent Revenue Court in accordance with Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The present FIR has been lodged in contravention of Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 rather than utilizing remedies available for removal of encroachment. Learned counsel further submits that the area Lekhpal has resorted to coercive measures to register the FIR against the applicants. The impugned order is

¶9

patently illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law and thus, liable to be quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel further drawn the attention of Court to Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and submitted that the applicants have not committed any act of mischief leading to damage to public property, nor has the applicants caused such damage through fire or explosive substances. The continuation of criminal proceedings qua applicants under the aforesaid sections constitutes an abuse of the process of Court. Learned counsel also relied upon the case of Shankar Nath Pandey & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2024(3) JIC 456 (All)(LB)], passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶11

Per contra, Per contra , learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that a survey was conducted by the Revenue Inspector and the Lekhpal, during which it was found that the applicants had encroached upon the public pathway. The ingredients of Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are satisfied.

¶12

After carefully considering the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the question raised by the applicants involve disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated upon by the trial court after appreciation of evidence. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not meant to substitute the trial or to appreciate evidence at this stage.

¶13

It is a settled proposition of law that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. No sufficient ground has been made out by the applicants

¶14

to quash the criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage.

¶15

Perusal of record and on examination of document placed before the Court, its prima-facie established that the applicants have encroached public property illegally, which satisfies the requirement of Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Keeping in view the illegal encroachment on public land, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

¶16

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 5.3.2025 A. Tripathi

¶18

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kadeer and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadeer and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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