ABDUL HAKEEM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/5136/2025 · 2025-03-19
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31271 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31271 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41262-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5136 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abdul Hakeem And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Ram Raj Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record.
2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R.dated 01.02.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0057 of 2025, under Sections 329(3) of B.N.S., 2023 and section 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Meerganj, District Bareilly. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned F.I.R. is being challenged on the ground that the proceedings under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has been initiated qua the property in dispute, by the Revenue Authority, and after submission of the Lekhpal report dated 07.09.2019, finally the order dated 18.11.2024 was passed by Tehsildar, wherein it has been indicated that petitioners have not encroached upon the public utility land.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that after passing of the aforementioned order dated 18.11.2024, halka lekhpal in collusion with villagers lodged the impugned F.I.R. with malafide intention, which is pure abuse of process of law and, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 4. The relief is resisted by learned AGA on the premised that even though the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 is self contained Act but the provisions contained under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, the rights cannot be crystalized only in summary manner, this is to be ascertained by the Revenue Authority whether there is new encroachment over the land or not. Once the Authority has find that the public utility land has not been encroached upon, this decision has been taken by Tehsildar in favour of the petitioner, but on the other
hand, as per F.I.R. public utility land /drainage has been encroached upon. 5. Confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that offences, complained of, are punishable only up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments. 6. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted. 7. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Bhanu (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M. C. Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad