HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31121 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.547 of 2025 (State vs. Rakesh Kumar Tripathi and Others) under sections 379 I.P.C. and section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, arising out of Case Crime No.03 of 2023, P.S. Nareni, District- Banda, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Banda, including charge-sheet dated 14.10.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 01.04.2025. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that in pursuance to certain issue with National Green Tribunal with regard to illegal mining, an investigation has been carried out, wherein illegal mining has been found over some plot which is adjacent to the plot of applicant, over which proper license has been issued in favour of applicant and as such implication of applicant in the instant matter is under some wrong information, which is highly illegal. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 will not attract against the applicant in pursuance to judgement pronounced by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jitendra vs. State of U.P. and Another, decided on 10.05.2024 in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.7662 of 2023, wherein specific para- 23 of the said judgement of Jitendra (supra) is quoted herein below:- "23. The court is explaining that the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhay Singh Tomar, Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Atique Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) (PDPP) Act, 1984, only applies to situations where public property is damaged or destroyed during riots or public demonstrations. This means if there's damage to things like government buildings or infrastructure during these events, the PDPP Act can be used to address it. So, if there's no actual damage or loss related to Gram Sabha land or any other village land due to illegal encroachment by someone living in the village or holding land there temporarily, without causing damage or decreasing the land's value, then the PDPP Act wouldn't be applicable. In essence, if someone occupies land unlawfully but doesn't cause any harm or decrease in value to the land, the PDPP Act doesn't come into play. This means that the Act is primarily concerned with instances where there is actual damage to public property or where the value of the property is diminished due to unlawful activities." 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant that the temporary possession or the permanent possession cannot be determined at this stage and as such the plea taken up by learned counsel for applicant is not sustainable. 6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, the fact which is available in the instant matter is with regard to illegal mining, and once illegal mining as alleged in the narration of F.I.R. in which proper investigation has been conducted by concerned investigating officer, wherein the name of applicant has been surfaced, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned. If in any case, as alleged in the charge-sheet, the extraction of minerals is from the plot which has not been licensed to the applicant, it comes under the crystal clear mining causing damage to the public property. So far as regarding the pronouncement of the judgement passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jitendra (supra) is concerned, the same is related to an incident, which may cause to the public damage, but does not covering all types of damages whatsoever has been caused to the public property concerned; the riots can only cause through the public property damage, otherwise there are certain more for damaging the public property; construction on the public property and usage of the same also covered under the public property damages act, whereas no riot has been caused; having highest regards to the missing part of judgement, which has not been considered in case of Jitendra (supra) is enlarge in the instant application and as such the same is not applicable as demonstrated by learned counsel for applicant. NA528 No. 31121 of 2025 2 7. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any specific legal grounds for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.03 of 2023, P.S. Nareni, District- Banda and as such the instant application lacks merit. 8. The instant application stands dismissed accordingly. August 22, 2025 Saif NA528 No. 31121 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad