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 disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of State-respondents.

2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief:

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge-Sheet dated 12/12/2021, filed before Learned A.C.J.M.- Court No. 17, Sultanpur, cognizance dated 04/05/2022 and order dated 04/05/2022, in Criminal Case No.1124/2022, "State Vs. Ram Nayan & Ors." F.I.R No.0345/2021, U/Ss. 2, 3, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S.- Chanda, District- Sultanpur, as next date was fixed as 21/03/2025 for appearance, and as contained in Annexure-1 and 2-collectively to this Petition.

To stay the further proceeding in before Learned A.C.J.M.-Court No.17, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.1124/2022, State Vs. Ram Nayan & Ors.", against the Petitioners, during the pendency of this Petition before this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants for the purposes of causing interference in the pending proceedings is to the effect that as per the case set up in the FIR registered as Case Crime No.0345/2021, on 10.11.2021 the case of the prosecution against the applicants is to the effect that 12 individuals including the applicants namely Rakesh Kumar, Dayaram Verma (in F.I.R. "Dayaram"), Ram Abhilakh, Ram Nayan Dhuriya, Mukesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar (in F.I.R. "Rajesh"), encroached land of Gata No.253/0.189 Hectare, Gata No.270/1.416 Hectare, Gata No.268/0.152 hectare, Gata No.116/0.569 Hectare, Gata No.258/1.821 Hectare, situated in Village Sherpur Parasrampur, Pargana-Chanda, Tehshil-Lambhua, District Sultanpur, which is recorded as 'Talab' i.e. public utility land. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant under Section 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (in short "Act of 1984"), the Investigating Officer thereafter conducted investigation and upon completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet indicated therein that the offence against the applicants is made out under Section 2/3 of the Act of 1984 and thereafter the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Sultanpur, without application of mind vide order dated 04.05.2022 summoned the applicant and other accused under Section 2/3 of the Act of 1984 for facing the trial.

4. He further submitted that in the above factual background of the case the present application seeking main relief, quoted above, has been filed particularly on the ground(s) that (i) Offense under Section 2, 3 of Act, 1984 is not made out against the applicants; (ii) the Magistrate has passed the cognizance order on an printed proforma as such the Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind; (iii) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code, 2006"), is self-contained code and encroacher can be dealt with in the manner prescribed therein particularly Section 67 read with relevant rules. Under Section 67 of Code, 2006, after following the due process of law, the encroacher can be evicted and the penalty can also be imposed on the encroacher by the Revenue Authority namely Tehsildar and order of the Tehsildar passed in exercise of power under Section 67 of Code, 2006, is appealable.

5. He further submitted that tenure holder can file declaratory suit under Section 144 of Code, 2006 and the Gram Panchayat can file a suit for declaration under Section 145 of Code, 2006.

6. He further submitted that in view of scheme of Code, 2006, the FIR lodged by the lekhpal is nothing but an abuse of process of law as such, the indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

7. He further submitted that this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Prabhakant And Another Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 397, after considering the provisions of the Act, 1984 and the Code, 2006, interfered in the procee