Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52059 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11443 of 2025 Applicant :- Makbool Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tripathi,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet no. 92/2002 under sections 379, 411 IPC and 4/21 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, PS- Manjhanpur, District- Kaushambi as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 481/2013 (State vs. Makbool) under sections 379, 411 IPC and 4/21 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, PS- Manjhanpur, District- Kaushambi arising out of Case Crime no. 125 of 2002 under sections 379, 411 IPC and 4/21 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, PS- Manjhanpur, District- Kaushambi as well as summoning order dated 16.09.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi as well as non- bailable warrant dated 18.12.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. 3. As per the factual matrix of the matter, initially FIR has been registered on dated 25.05.2002 at Case Crime no. 125 of 2002 at the behest of certain transportation which is being carried out by applicant along with some another co-accused in shape of sand which was loaded excessive to the standard measurement which has been confiscated by S.H.O, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Officer in- charge mines Kaushambi, and applicant along with other co- accused have been implicated in pursuance to sections 379/411 of IPC along Section 4/21 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. After conducting detailed investigation, concerned Investigating Officer preferred charge sheet on the next date i.e. 26.05.2002, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned on dated 16.09.2002. 4. While challenging the entire proceeding arising out of Case Crime no. 125 of 2002, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR dated 25.05.2002, charge sheet dated 26.05.2002 and order dated 16.09.2002 has not been challenged well within time since the applicant is illiterate person and by profession he is a driver only who has been illegally implicated in pursuance to sections which are not available in the Act which has been mentioned while institution of FIR and in the most illegal manner, the cognizance of offence has already been taken up by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi without disclosing the sections in which the cognizance of offence has been taken up. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the charge sheet has been preferred whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in pursuance to Section 4/21 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 but the entire Act deals with only 7 sections, precisely Section 4 is related to mischief causing damage to public property by fire or explosive substance and there is hardly any attraction of Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 in pursuance to narration available in the FIR or the same is apparent from conduction of inquiry which culminated into preferring a charge sheet only within less than 24 hours. 6. Per contra, learned AGA although vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application but did not disputed the fact that attraction of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act is not at all sustainable in pursuance to narration of the FIR as well as the charge sheet which has been preferred by concerned Investigating Officer. 7. The mentioning of sections 4/21 itself reveals that there is a gross violation of the entire process of law while conducting the case of the prosecution from the initial stance i.e. institution of FIR under section 4/21 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 8. In view of the aforementioned discussions, as well as considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant that this Court finds that there is hardly any section available in the damages to Public Property Act and as such under which circumstances same has been mentioned in the FIR whereupon the charge sheet has been preferred and in the most surprising manner how the cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in pursuance to the same sections which has been mentioned in the charge sheet. Once the Section 21 is not at all available in the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, how the prosecution can be instituted and initiated against the applicant. 9. After careful consideration of the proceeding arising out of Case Crime no. 125 of 2002, it is apparent from the records that the same has not been established within the premises of law, moreover at the time of taking cognizance of offence the same has been ignored by learned Judicial Authority also which deserves to be quashed. 10. In the light of the discussions and considering the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant, entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime no. 125 of 2002, PS- Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi are hereby set aside. 11. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad