Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135685 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23304 of 2025 Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Anand Sagar Dubey, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 08.05.2023 and cognizance order dated 07.05.2024 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.9079 of 2024 (State Vs. Dharmendra), arising out of Case Crime No.303 of 2022, under Section 427 IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, P.S. Husainganj, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Fatehpur. 3. It is the case of prosecution that a community washroom/utility room constructed in the year 1993-94, has been illegally demolished by applicant which culminated into lodging of the present FIR on dated 03.10.2022 by opposite party no.2/Gram Pradhan wherein applicant has been implicated as an accused. After lodging of the FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer started inquiry and after conclusion of the same, preferred charge- sheet on dated 08.05.2023 against applicant whereupon learned court concerned took cognizance of offence vide order dated 07.05.2024 which impugned the present petition. 4. Before institution of the present FIR, a specific report was submitted by Block Development Officer Bhitaura, Fatehpur before Project Director, District Rurual Development Authority, Fatehpur on dated 21.07.2022 through which it has been demonstrated by learned counsel for applicant that the said property which has been alleged as demolished by applicant, was very old and constructed in the year 1993-94 and it was almost dilapidated and also there was no illegal possession or encroachment carried out by applicant and as such, in pursuance of the report dated 21.07.2022, implication of applicant in the present case, is purely on false and concocted story and action of opposite party no.2, is nothing but dragging the applicant into an unwarranted criminal litigation without having any authority to lodge the FIR under the capacity of Gram Pradhan. Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that opposite party no.2 is trying to settle his personal scores with the applicant since the authorities define under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, does not confer any power in favour of Gram Pradhan to lodge FIR specifically in respect of Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 5. Upon legal argument raised by learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA-I, on the basis of instructions, submitted that it is the detail chain of investigation and inquiry conducted by Block Development Officer as well as the other authorities and implication of applicant is only on the basis of direction issued by competent authority ultimately in favour of Gram Pradhan concerned/opposite party no.2 who lodged FIR against applicant. 6. On specific query made before learned AGA-I that whether any direction has been issued by any competent authority in favour of Gram Pradhan for lodging FIR, it is fairly submitted by learned AGA-I on the basis of instructions that there is a specific direction issued by concerned Block Development Officer to opposite party no.2 for lodging FIR. Upon instructions, again a query has been made before learned AGA-I that whether Block Development Officer can issue such direction in favour of Gram Pradhan to lodge FIR, it has been again very politely submitted by learned AGA-I that the action of concerned Block Development Officer, is against all canons of law and he cannot issue such direction. 7. After having the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, it is crystal clear that opposite party no.2 in execution of direction issued by the concerned Block Development Officer, lodged the present FIR wherein applicant has been implicated as an accused in pursuance of Section 427 IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act wherein chargesheet was filed and cognizance of offence has also been taken. It is not in dispute that direction issued by concerned Block Development Authority, is illegal whereupon applicant has been implicated into an unwarranted criminal litigation which has also not been considered by learned court concerned at the time of taking cognizance of offence vide order dated 07.05.2024 and as such, the entire proceedings arising out of the same, is an illegal and misuse of process of law by the concerned Block Development Officer who must be acquainted with the legal procedure and law prevailing for protection of public property being Development Officer. It is also very strange that the Block Development Officer itself submitted its report dated 21.07.2022 through which he excluded the applicant from any allegation whatsoever has been framed through narration of the FIR and on the other hand, direction was issued to opposite party no.2 to lodge FIR implicating the applicant. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, chargesheet dated 08.05.2023 and cognizance order dated 07.05.2024 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.9079 of 2024 (State Vs. Dharmendra), arising out of Case Crime No.303 of 2022, under Section 427 IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, P.S. Husainganj, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Fatehpur, are hereby quashed 9. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. 10. However, it is made clear that if the said public washroom is rebuilt at the cost of public exchequer, the applicant will render his services as a labour without receiving a single penny since the same pertains to development of his own village and none of the villager is permitted to cause damage to the same. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad