HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41348 of 2024 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Shri Mirza Ali Zulfaqar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi, holding brief of Shri Umakant Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A for the State-respondent. 2. By means of the present application, applicant has sought quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 386 of 2024, (State vs. Susheel Singh), under Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, arising out of Case Crime No.209 of 2020, Police Station Phoolpur, District Prayagraj (Allahabad) as well as the charge sheet dated 26.03.2021 and cognizance order dated 23.05.2024 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-IV, Prayagraj (Allahabad). 3. Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 11.06.2020 bearing Case Crime No.209 of 2020 was lodged by Lekhpal/opposite party no.2 in pursuance of Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against applicants alleging that applicants have encroached illegally over Gata No.527 Ga situated at Village Arvaasi May Bahadurgarh, Sikandara Phoolpur, District Prayagraj which is Usar land. 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 26.03.2021 against applicants whereupon learned court concerned has taken cognizance/summoning of offence vide order dated 23.05.2024 which impugned the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for applicantd 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 3/4 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mirza Ali Zulfaqar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Umakant Pandey Susheel Singh And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of Upand Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 applicants. 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. 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 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 23.05.2024 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. 9. Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C of the High Court, entire proceedings of the Case Crime no. 209 of 2020, Police Station Phoolpur, District Prayagraj (Allahabad) is hereby quashed only in respect of applicants namely Sushil Singh and Pavan Kumar Sing @ Pavan Kumar. 10. The instant application stands allowed. 11. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the revenue authorities concerned to proceed against applicants, if required, in accordance with the strict provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. September 11, 2025 Rakesh A482 No. 41348 of 2024 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad