Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86214 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21397 of 2024 Applicant :- Atul Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Om Vikram Singh Chauhan,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nipun Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. Order on Civil Misc. Application no. nil of 2025. 1. Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 preferred instant application today which is taken on record. 2. Through the instant application, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 sought deletion of paragraph no. 1 of order dated 14.05.2025 passed in instant petition. 3. Cause shown for filing instant application seems to be justified. 4. Only paragraph no. 1 of previous order dated 14.05.2025 stands deleted. 5. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Order on Petition 1. Heard Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ritik Raj, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to set aside and quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1677/2020 (State vs. Atul Jaiswal) under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, charge sheet dated 19.01.2020 and summoning order dated 11.06.2020 passed by learned C.J.M in Criminal Case no. 1677/2020 endorsed on certified copy of charge sheet be quashed. 3. It is the case of the applicant, that he purchased house no. 7/194 measuring area 129.33 sq. mt. from the original allottee i.e. one Rajiv Kamal son of Hira Lal Saxena, as an allottee of the aforesaid house and the same has been transferred through registered sale- deed on dated 18.08.2008 and thereafter subsequent sale-deed performed by erstwhile owner in favour of applicant on dated 25.06.2018. Applicant is having possession over the plot no. 7/194 total measuring area 124.33 sq. mt. only which is in consonance with the site plan of the sale-deed dated 18.08.2008 and there is hardly any encroachment carried out by the applicant. Applicant was not in the knowledge about the pendency of any case before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly and cause of action arises for filing application, once the applicant has been summoned in pursuance to cognizance of offence taken up by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly vide order dated 11.06.2020 over the charge sheet preferred at the behest of concerned Investigating Officer in pursuance to Case Crime no. 1403 of 2019. 4. Precise ground taken up by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant is that there is hardly any cause of action arises in favour of opposite party no. 2 for implicating applicant being encroacher in pursuance to Case Crime no. 1403 of 2019 since he is in possession over the same property which has already been transferred through sale-deed executed at the behest of opposite party no. 2 itself in favour of one Mr. Rajiv Kamal who is erstwhile owner of plot no. 7/194 from whom, subsequently registered sale-deed has been performed in favour of the applicant. 5. While preferring counter affidavit, it is the stand taken up by opposite party no. 2/Awas Evam Vikas Parishad that the site plan has been modified vide order dated 04.12.2008 in respect of the width of the road mentioned at the time of executing sale-deed in favour of erstwhile owner measuring 1.80 to 2.50 meters but the actual site-plan was having 9 meters width of road but the physical possession has already been handed over at the time of execution of sale-deed and as such at present the possession carried out by the applicant over 9 meter road is highly illegal and he is entitled only for having 1.80 to 2.50 meter in front of his house. 6. After having the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, precise query has been made before learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 whether any correction applied in the execution of sale-deed which has already been performed way back in the year 2008, it is submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that no such correction has ever been carried out or sought in the sale-deed performed in the year 2008 in favour of erstwhile owner i.e. Rajiv Kamal. 7. Once it is admitted case at the behest of opposite party no. 2 that no such amendment or correction has ever been sought in the sale- deed itself and the possession which was carried out by erstwhile owner of plot/house no. 7/194, no cause of action arises for initiating criminal proceedings against the applicant in the changed site plan which has never been introduced or preferred in the proceeding which has already been culminated between the parties in shape of execution of registered sale-deed and the present applicant is having possession over the same which was never ever disputed or intimated by the responding authorities. 8. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding arising out in shape of institution of Case no. 1677 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime no. 1403 of 2019 under Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly is hereby set aside. 9. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad