IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Jitendra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 7662 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought to quash an order rejecting his discharge application in a case under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, claiming he was falsely accused of encroaching on public property while he was a minor at the time of the alleged offense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the evidence presented by the applicant and committed a manifest illegality in rejecting the discharge application. It emphasized that the PDPP Act applies only when there is actual damage to public property.
Issues: Whether the applicant's actions constituted a violation of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the PDPP Act is concerned with actual damage to public property and that temporary occupation without damage does not fall under its purview. The court also noted the importance of proper evidence evaluation in discharge applications.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the order dated 16.05.2023 and the entire criminal proceedings against the applicant.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
1. The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.05.2023 passed by Learned Additional Civil Judge (C.D.) Fast/ACJM. Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1223/2023 vide Crime No. 12/2020, U/s 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Maharuwa, District-Ambedkar Nagar, on the application of applicant under Section 239 Cr.P.C and further be pleased to discharge the applicant.
2. Heard Sri Neeranjan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complainant-Lekhpal of the village concerned had lodged an F.I.R. dated 02.02.2020 bearing No. 12/2020 U/s 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Maharuwa against the applicant and 6 other persons stating therein that the alleged accused persons with the intention of grasping the public property kept the “puaal” straw on Gata No. 625 which is recorded as “chak marg” in Revenue record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicant was minor at the time of lodging of F.I.R. and the alleged allegation leveled against the applicant by the Complainant is false and fabricated. The true fact is that the applicant did not intend to grasp any public utility land but had kept the straw (Puaal) over the said Gata on temporary basis as the other co-accused has also put the same and all the (Puaal) Straw has been removed and the said Gata was being used by the villagers and other people since long year back.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in a very mechanical and arbitrary manner and filed the charge-sheet on 04.10.2020 against the applicant under Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and strucked off the Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had earlier filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 23.02.2023 the applicant to move discharge application through counsel.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the thereafter the applicant moved discharge application before the court of learned Additional Civil judge (C.D) Fast/ACJM. Ambedkar Nagar and the concerned court vide order dated 16.05.2023 rejected the discharge application without considering the material evidence on record.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant was selected in the Indian Army under Agniveer scheme vide selection list year 2023 but he was not allowed to join due to very fact of FIR being lodged against him without any case of criminal nature made out against him.
9. learned A.G.A. for the State controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicant on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
10. After considering the argument advance by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the relevant provision of the Act be dealt with, which are quoted here as under:
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
Section 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.
(ii) any State Government.
(iii) any local authority.
(iv) any corporation established by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State A
Kodungallur Film Society and another vs. Union of India and others
In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re: vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others
AI
The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, applies only to instances of actual damage to public property, and temporary, non-destructive occupation does not constitute a violation of the ....
Criminal proceedings for encroachment must be based on proper demarcation and adjudication by revenue authorities, not solely on police investigations.
Criminal proceedings for encroachment on public land cannot supersede the Revenue Code's provisions, which provide a comprehensive framework for resolving such disputes.
The court held that the FIR under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act was an abuse of process, emphasizing that the U.P. Revenue Code provides the exclusive remedy for land encroachment d....
The court ruled that charges under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act were improperly invoked, emphasizing that encroachments should be addressed under the U.P. Revenue Code, which provi....
The court reinforced that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction in matters of land encroachment.
Statement of objects and reasons is in the nature of external aids to interpretation of statutes and can be looked into, only if it is necessary to do so, to ascertain legislative intent in case of c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.