Legal News & Court Updates.

Anyone Can Initiate Criminal Proceedings for Public Property Damage, Supreme Court Clarifies

The Apex Court holds that civil remedy procedures under state revenue laws do not bar a citizen, like a Gram Pradhan, from filing an FIR under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

---

NEW DELHI – In a significant ruling that reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that any citizen can set the criminal law in motion for offences related to public property damage, unless specifically barred by statute. The Court overturned a High Court order that had quashed criminal proceedings on the ground that the complainant, a Gram Pradhan (Village Head), lacked the locus standi (the right to bring an action) to file the First Information Report (FIR).

The judgment was delivered in the case of Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. , setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order dated September 24, 2024.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR (Case Crime No. 323 of 2023) lodged by a Gram Pradhan in Uttar Pradesh. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused, Naushad and three others, under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the SC/ST Act, and critically, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. However, the accused challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court allowed their appeal, quashing the proceedings. Its reasoning was that under Sections 67 and 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, only designated authorities like the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or the Lekhpal could initiate action regarding public land, not the Gram Pradhan.

Supreme Court's Analysis: Civil vs. Criminal Remedies

The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning to be a "manifest error in law." The bench clarified the distinct domains of civil and criminal law. It explained that the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, are civil in nature, designed for processes like ejecting trespassers or ascertaining damages.

However, when an act constitutes a criminal offence of mischief or damage to public property, the specific criminal statute—the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984—is attracted. The Court emphasized that the two legal frameworks operate in different contexts and one does not exclude the other.

The Principle of Locus Standi in Criminal Law

Reaffirming a well-established legal principle, the Court cited its own precedent in Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2012) , stating:

> "...it is a well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set out or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary."

The judgment highlighted that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) does not bar a citizen from filing a complaint for an offence. The Court observed that neither the 1984 Act nor any other relevant statute in this case contained any provision limiting who could make a complaint.

In its decisive conclusion, the Supreme Court stated: > "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court manifestly erred in law in holding that since the Gram Pradhan was not the competent authority to lodge an FIR, the action of the Special Judge in taking cognizance and summoning the accused is bad in law."

Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. This decision restores the cognizance order of the Special Judge, and the criminal proceedings against the accused will now continue.

The ruling serves as a crucial clarification on the right of ordinary citizens and public-spirited individuals, including elected local representatives, to report crimes, especially those affecting the community at large. It reinforces that procedural rules for civil remedies under specific state laws cannot be used to stifle criminal prosecution for damage to public property.