High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 06.06.2022 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 03.09.2022 and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.11937 of 2022 (State vs. Suresh Chandra Giri) arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2022, under section 379 IPC; sections 3, 58, 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2021; sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Chopan, District- Sonbhadra, pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

3. Brief facts of the case is that initially a joint meeting consisting concerned Lekhpal, Servekshak, Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate has been conducted with regard to illegal mining conducted by the applicant from which a report dated 12.04.2022 has been submitted with conclusion that applicant is illegal mining 20 cube meter Dolo Stone outside the leased mining area valid from 24.07.2015 to 23.07.2015 in favour of applicant, over which an FIR dated 07.05.2022 being Case Crime No.115 of 2022 has been lodged by opposite party no.2, namely, S.K. Pal, Servekshak Mines Office, against the applicant and one unknown accused for the offence under section 379 IPC; sections 3, 58, 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2021; sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

4. After concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer considered the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jayant and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670 and exonerate the applicant in pursuance to sections sections 3, 58, 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2021 and sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and submitted impugned charge-sheet on dated 06.06.2022 against the applicant, whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance of offence vide order dated 03.09.2022 and summoned the applicant only under section 379 IPC and sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that on the basis of report dated 12.04.2022, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra issued show cause notice dated 06.05.2022 to the applicant and passed an order dated 06.06.2022 imposing penalty of Rs.17,18,750/-, which has already been deposited by him, the said deposit receipt dated 06.06.2022 is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that initially F.I.R. has been lodged under Mines and Minerals Act also along with section 379 IPC and sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, but the charge-sheet has been preferred only under section 379 IPC and sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, which is not maintainable in case of theft in Mines. For substantiating the same, learned counsel for applicant relied upon provisions of Section 22 of the said Mines and Minerals Act, which clearly provides that in respect of any offence punishable under the Act or any rules made thereunder, no court shall take cognizance except upon complaint made in writing by a person authorized in this behalf by Central Government or State Government

6. So far as sections 3/4 of P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is concerned, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted 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/public land. The Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Sections 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

7. In any case, the question as to whether applicant had illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha/public property, 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 opposite party no.2 is nothing but with a view to harass the applicant.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is crystal clear 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 Sections 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 03.09.2022 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. It is also made clear that proceedings in pursuance to section 379 I.P.C. cannot be initiated in case of theft in mines and minerals as well as the fact that penalty with regard to illegal mining imposed by District Magistrate, Sonbhadra upon the applicant has already been deposited and as such there is no ground available to continue to the proceeding against the applicant.

11. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the entire proceedings in shape of Criminal Case No.11937 of 2022 (State vs. Suresh Chandra Giri) arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2022, under section 379 IPC; sections 3, 58, 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2021; sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Chopan, District- Sonbhadra, pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, including charge sheet dated 06.06.2022 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 03.09.2022, are hereby quashed.

12. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly.

13. However, it is made clear that above mentioned direction will not preclude the authorities concerned to proceed afresh against the applicant, if required in pursuance to procedure available at law. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Saif SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 06.06.2022 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 03.09.2022 and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.11937 of 2022 (State vs. Suresh Chandra Giri) arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2022, under section 379 IPC; sections 3, 58, 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2021; sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Chopan, District- Sonbhadra, pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

3. Brief facts of the case is that initially a joint meeting consisting concerned Lekhpal, Servekshak, Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate has been conducted with regard to illegal mining conducted by the applicant from which a report dated 12.04.2022 has been submitted with conclusion that applicant is illegal mining 20 cube meter Dolo Stone outside the leased mining area valid from 24.07.2015 to 23.07.2015 in favour of applicant, over which an FIR dated 07.05.2022 being Case Crime No.115 of 2022 has been lodged by opposite party no.2, namely, S.K. Pal, Servekshak Mines Office, against the applicant and one unknown accused for the offence under section 379 IPC; sections 3, 58, 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2021; sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

4. After concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer considered the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jayant and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670 and exonerate the applicant in pursuance to sections sections 3, 58, 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2021 and sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and submitted impugned charge-sheet on dated 06.06.2022 against the applicant, whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance of offence vide order dated 03.09.2022 and summoned the applicant only under section 379 IPC and sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that on the basis of report dated 12.04.2022, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra issued show cause notice dated 06.05.2022 to the applicant and passed an order dated 06.06.2022 imposing penalty of Rs.17,18,750/-, which has already been deposited by him, the said deposit receipt dated 06.06.2022 is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that initially F.I.R. has been lodged under Mines and Minerals Act also along with section 379 IPC and sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, but the charge-sheet has been preferred only under section 379 IPC and sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, which is not maintainable in case of theft in Mines. For substantiating the same, learned counsel for applicant relied upon provisions of Section 22 of the said Mines and Minerals Act, which clearly provides that in respect of any offence punishable under the Act or any rules made thereunder, no court shall take cognizance except upon complaint made in writing by a person authorized in this behalf by Central Government or State Government

6. So far as sections 3/4 of P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is concerned, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted 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/public land. The Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Sections 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

7. In any case, the question as to whether applicant had illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha/public property, 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 opposite party no.2 is nothing but with a view to harass the applicant.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is crystal clear 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 Sections 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 03.09.2022 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. It is also made clear that proceedings in pursuance to section 379 I.P.C. cannot be initiated in case of theft in mines and minerals as well as the fact that penalty with regard to illegal mining imposed by District Magistrate, Sonbhadra upon the applicant has already been deposited and as such there is no ground available to continue to the proceeding against the applicant.

11. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the entire proceedings in shape of Criminal Case No.11937 of 2022 (State vs. Suresh Chandra Giri) arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2022, under section 379 IPC; sections 3, 58, 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2021; sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Chopan, District- Sonbhadra, pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, including charge sheet dated 06.06.2022 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 03.09.2022, are hereby quashed.

12. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly.

13. However, it is made clear that above mentioned direction will not preclude the authorities concerned to proceed afresh against the applicant, if required in pursuance to procedure available at law. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Saif SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad