High Court

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present application, applicants have sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, over charge sheet no. 01/2025, dated 02.01.2025 submitted by the Investigating Officer, in Case no. 14735 of 2025 (State vs. Atul Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime no. 261 of 2024, under sections 352, 351(2), 191(2) of BNS and under section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, related to PS- Bhadohi, District Bhadohi and challenged entire proceeding of said case.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 12.12.2024 bearing Case Crime No.261 of 2024 was lodged by opposite party no.2 in pursuance of Sections 352, 351(2), 191(2) of BNS and 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 alleging that applicants have encroached illegally over some part of Gata No.2832, 2833, 2834 which is Gram Sabha land. 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 02.01.2025 against applicants whereupon learned court concerned has taken cognizance/summoning of offence vide order dated 02.04.2025 which impugned the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for applicants has 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, 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 3/5 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

5. 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. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 2 himself is trying to encroach upon the land in question and as such earlier, applicants have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) no. 2321 of 2023 (Atul Singh vs. State of U.P. & others) before this Court wherein concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi submitted instructions and admitted that plot no. 2832 is free from encroachment.

6. 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 applicants.

7. 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.

8. Although provision of section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 is attracted in the instant matter and some specific grounds has been taken up by learned counsel for the applicants in respect of instructions issued at the behest of Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadohi in (PIL) no. 2321 of 2023 (Atul Singh vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein it has been specifically mentioned that there is hardly any encroachment over plot no. 2832 carried out as alleged in the said PIL. 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 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 02.04.2025 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. The continuation of 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. Moreover, since genisis of the matter arises from section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and sections 352, 351(2), 191(2) of BNS have been imposed against applicants in connection with section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 as such same are also not sustainable.

9. Invoking inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS of the High Court, entire proceedings of the Case no. 14735 of 2025 (State vs. Atul Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime no. 261 of 2024, under sections 352, 351(2), 191(2) of BNS and under section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, related to PS- Bhadohi, District Bhadohi is hereby quashed only in respect of applicants herein.

10. The instant application stands allowed. liberty However

11. is open before concerned authorities/opposite party no. 2 to proceed against applicants, if required strictly in accordance with law including Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Shaswat

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present application, applicants have sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, over charge sheet no. 01/2025, dated 02.01.2025 submitted by the Investigating Officer, in Case no. 14735 of 2025 (State vs. Atul Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime no. 261 of 2024, under sections 352, 351(2), 191(2) of BNS and under section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, related to PS- Bhadohi, District Bhadohi and challenged entire proceeding of said case.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 12.12.2024 bearing Case Crime No.261 of 2024 was lodged by opposite party no.2 in pursuance of Sections 352, 351(2), 191(2) of BNS and 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 alleging that applicants have encroached illegally over some part of Gata No.2832, 2833, 2834 which is Gram Sabha land. 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 02.01.2025 against applicants whereupon learned court concerned has taken cognizance/summoning of offence vide order dated 02.04.2025 which impugned the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for applicants has 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, 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 3/5 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

5. 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. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 2 himself is trying to encroach upon the land in question and as such earlier, applicants have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) no. 2321 of 2023 (Atul Singh vs. State of U.P. & others) before this Court wherein concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi submitted instructions and admitted that plot no. 2832 is free from encroachment.

6. 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 applicants.

7. 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.

8. Although provision of section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 is attracted in the instant matter and some specific grounds has been taken up by learned counsel for the applicants in respect of instructions issued at the behest of Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadohi in (PIL) no. 2321 of 2023 (Atul Singh vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein it has been specifically mentioned that there is hardly any encroachment over plot no. 2832 carried out as alleged in the said PIL. 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 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 02.04.2025 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. The continuation of 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. Moreover, since genisis of the matter arises from section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and sections 352, 351(2), 191(2) of BNS have been imposed against applicants in connection with section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 as such same are also not sustainable.

9. Invoking inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS of the High Court, entire proceedings of the Case no. 14735 of 2025 (State vs. Atul Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime no. 261 of 2024, under sections 352, 351(2), 191(2) of BNS and under section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, related to PS- Bhadohi, District Bhadohi is hereby quashed only in respect of applicants herein.

10. The instant application stands allowed. liberty However

11. is open before concerned authorities/opposite party no. 2 to proceed against applicants, if required strictly in accordance with law including Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Shaswat