Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26071 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5859 of 2025 Applicant :- Pyare Lal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Shukla,Rajendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 27.11.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Mauranipur, Jhansi as well as entire proceedings of Case No.5672 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.142 of 2023, under Section 2/3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at P.S. Lahchura, District Jhansi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the complainant of the case. No encroachment 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. The impugned order is patently illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law and thus, liable to be quashed. Further, in support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923, and Prabhakatn and another v. State of U.P. & Anr, reported in 2023 (11) ADJ 68, passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court. 4. Per contra, Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that on spot inspection carried out by the Revenue Team, it was found that the applicants had encroached upon the public land. The ingredients of Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are satisfied. 5. 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. 6. 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 to quash the criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage. 7. On examination of entire material available on record, it is prima facie established that during an on-site inspection, conducted by the Revenue Team, it was found that the applicants have illegally encroached upon public property, which meets the criteria outlined in Sections 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The prosecuting agency is always at liberty to adopt the measures deemed most appropriate to bring the accused before the law. In light of the illegal encroachment on public land, no for quashing of the impugned proceedings is made out. 8. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Shafique Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad