HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37583 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been preferred to quash the chargesheet dated 11.08.2019 and cognizance order dated 18.02.2020 along with entire proceedings of Case No.169 of 2020 (State vs. Braj Kishor) arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2019, under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Chakar Nagar, District- Etawah, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Etawah. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 30.07.2019 bearing Case Crime No.59 of 2019 was lodged by opposite party no.2 in pursuance to Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against applicant alleging that by way of his overloaded truck, road which is a public property, has been damaged. After lodging of the FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer started inquiry and after conclusion of the same, preferred charge-sheet on dated 11.08.2019 against applicant whereupon learned court concerned had taken cognizance of offence vide order dated 18.02.2020, which impugned the present application. 4. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that once, in respect of alleged incident, challan was issued against applicant and in pursuance of the same, he had already deposited Rs.5500/- and with regard to the said incident, initiation of criminal prosecution taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 for causing damage to the road, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and as such, the entire proceedings of the present case, may be set aside. Receipt of the deposition of challan has been appended with this petition. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Braj Kishor .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicant but did not dispute the fact that challan of Rs.5,500/- had already been deposited by applicant in respect of the alleged incident. 6. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the entire material available on record, one thing is crystal clear that in respect of alleged incident, challan was issued against applicant and in pursuance of the same, he had already deposited Rs.5500/- and as such, the proceedings initiated against applicant by way of implicating him in the present case, is having no justification. This clearly indicates that the applicant is being subjected to two parallel proceedings for the same alleged offence, thereby attracting the bar of double jeopardy. The doctrine of double jeopardy is a well-established principle of criminal law, which mandates that no person shall be prosecuted or punished twice for the same offence. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, chargesheet dated 11.08.2019 and cognizance order dated 18.02.2020 along with entire proceedings of Case No.169 of 2020 (State vs. Braj Kishor) arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2019, under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Chakar Nagar, District- Etawah, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Etawah, are hereby quashed. 8. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. September 25, 2025 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 37583 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad