Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113548 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21955 of 2025 Applicant :- Najeeb Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including charge-sheet and summoning order dated 21.12.2024 in Case Crime no. 115 of 2024 (State vs. Sahwaz Ahmad Farooqui and others) under Section 3(2)(E) Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra, pending before Judicial Magistrate Duddhi, District Sonbhadra, during pendency of the present criminal misc. application before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that Case Crime no. 115 of 2024 in which applicants has been implicated in pursuance to Section 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 is only on the basis that the applicants being truck owner and driver are plying their trucks with overloaded articles which caused damage to road constructed and maintained by PWD.Informant being the Class IVth employee of PWD under the overseer/supervisor mentioned certain vehicle numbers in shape of truck whereupon concerned Investigating Officer preferred charge- sheet on dated 13.10.2024 whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned concerned court on dated 21.12.2024. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicants that certain compounding fee for overloading has already been deposited in pursuance to challan dated 18.09.2024 and the FIR has been lodged on dated 20.09.2024 and as such the entire proceeding is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Per contra, learned AGA although vehemently opposed the prayer and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicants but at the same time did not disputed the provisions of Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, wherein it is specifically mentioned that whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material, except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property shall be punishable. The benefit of some other person or a company or other body corporate or an association of persons, then such other person and every president, chairman, director, partner, manager, secretary, agent or any other officer or person concerned with the management thereof, as the case may be shall unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of such offence. 6. The specific damage to public property deals with doing any act in respect of any public property or other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section 2 of Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and the same relates to building, installation or other property used in the connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power. At the same time Section 3(2)(e) deals with any means of public transportation or for telecommunication or building installation or other property used in connection therewith. 7. Arguments raised by learned counsel for applicants seems to be justified, since implication of the applicants does not cover under Section 3(2)(e) of Act of 1984 only on the basis of plying overloaded truck, since the transportation of the truck is not covered under public transportation which is being disturbed by the plying of overloaded truck. The allegation whatsoever has been put forward against the applicants is covered under the Motor Vehicle Act wherein the challan has been submitted by the applicant on dated 20.09.2024 itself i.e. prior to lodging FIR against the applicants and as such the entire proceeding is bad in the eye of law. 8. Entire proceeding arising out of Case Crime no. 115 of 2024 (State vs. Sahwaz Ahmad Farooqui and others) under Section 3(2) (e) Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra is hereby quashed and set aside only in respect of applicants namely Najeeb Ahmad and Alim Beg. 9. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad