Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75020 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26297 of 2024 Applicant :- Yahya And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been preferred to quash charge-sheet dated 01.02.2016 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 26.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar and the entire proceeding of Case No.5473/9 of 2016 (State vs. Yahya and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.441 of 2015, under sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Chhapar, District- Muzaffarnagar, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 12.12.2015 bearing Case Crime No.441 of 2015 was lodged by opposite party no.2, Siyanand Lekhpal in pursuance to sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against the applicants with the allegation that applicants have made illegal encroachment over the gram sabha land mentioned as pond. The applicant had, thus, caused damage and loss to the public property which is the land vested in Gram Sabha. After lodging of the FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer started inquiry and after conclusion of the same, preferred charge-sheet on dated 01.02.2016 against applicants, whereupon learned court concerned has taken cognizance of offence vide order dated 26.03.2016, which impugned the present application. 4. Learned counsel for applicants have challenged the charge-sheet as well as cognizance/summoning order on several other grounds inter-alia precisely on the ground that lodging of the first information report taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions cannot be invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or loss caused to the Gram Sabha land. The Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Sections 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984. For substantiating his submissions, learned counsel for applicants relied upon the judgement rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.398 of 2013 (Prabhakant and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) along with No. 8168 of 2023 (Sajid and 8 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 13.07.2023. 5. In any case, the question as to whether applicant had illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha, recorded as public property, can only be adjudicated by the Revenue Authorities. The proper proceeding for eviction of the unauthorized occupant can be undertaken under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006. The short-cut procedure adopted by the Lekhpal of the village concerned is nothing but with a view to harass the applicants. 6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application, but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant. 7. While dealing with similar issue, co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order 6.8.2020 passed in Application u/s 482 no. 9964 of 2020 (Munshi Lal and Another vs. State of U.P. and another), quashed the entire proceeding u/s 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and held that as far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to Gram Sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court. As far as the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is concerned, the same has been enacted with the specific purpose. The statement of objects and reasons of the said Act shows that it was enacted with a view to curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that present case is squarely covered with the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Munshi Lal (supra) as well as Prabhakant and Another (supra) and as such the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants pursuant to Sections of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, cannot but be said to be an abuse of the process of law or the Court. The cognizance/summoning order dated 26.03.2016 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. The continuation of criminal proceedings, in the considered opinion of the Court, being an abuse of process of the Court, ends of the justice requires that the said proceedings be quashed. 9. Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the High Court, entire proceedings of the Case No.5473/9 of 2016 (State vs. Yahya and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.441 of 2015, under sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Chhapar, District- Muzaffarnagar is hereby quashed only in respect of applicants herein. 10. The instant application stands allowed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad