JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 05.12.2022 as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.02.2023 passed by C.J.M., Farrukhabad and also the entire proceedings of Case No.580 of 2023 (State vs. Ramnarayan Pandey and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.235 of 2022, under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.

3. The records of the case indicate that the criminal proceedings were initiated pursuant to an FIR dated 11.10.2022 lodged against the applicants, which was registered as Case Crime No.0235 of 2022, under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad. The case was investigated and a charge sheet dated 05.12.2022 was placed whereupon cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 10.02.2023 and the case was registered as Case No.580 of 2023.

4. The principal ground, which has been sought to be urged to seek quashment of the proceedings, is that the allegation in the FIR being in regard to the making encroachment, breaking of Pillar and wiring and boundary over the Gram Sabha land, the provisions of the PDPP Act could not have been invoked to initiate criminal proceedings. It is also submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 provides complete procedure for eviction of an unauthorized occupation from Gram Sabha land and in view of the same, criminal proceedings which have been initiated, are an abuse of process of court and are liable to be quashed. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhakant and another Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.398 of 2023 vide order dated 13.07.2023.

5. Controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned AGA submitted that the proceedings for eviction of unauthorized occupation, as provided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, are of a summary nature and there is no bar in initiating of criminal proceedings under the PDPP Act in case of damage to public property which would include within its purview Gram Sabha property also. It is submitted that the scope of criminal proceedings and the proceedings for eviction under the Revenue Code are entirely different and there is no bar in the same being simultaneously proceeded with.

6. Based on the rival contentions the question which falls for consideration is as to whether in respect of allegations relating to damage to Gram Sabha properties, only proceedings for eviction under Section 67 of the Revenue Code can be initiated, or criminal proceedings under the provisions of the PDPP Act can also be proceeded with.

7. The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (3 of 1984) was enacted to provide for prevention of damage to public properties and the matters connected therewith. For ease of reference the aforesaid Act i.e. The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (3 of 1984) is being reproduced in its entirety:-

"1. Short title, extent and commencement.-(1) This Act maybe called the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

(2) It extends to the whole of India.

(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 28th day of January, 1984.

2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(a) "mischief" shall have the same meaning as in section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);

(b) "public property" means any property, whether immovable or movable (including any machinery) which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control of--

(i) the Central Government; or

(ii) any State Government; or

(iii) any local authority; or

(iv) any corporation established by, or under, a Central,