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 provides a complete mechanism for such cases.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

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

2. Present application 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 chargesheet no. 1 dated 31.12.2017 filed against petitioner No. 1 to 5 (Annexure No. 4), charge sheet no. 2 dated 27.02.2018 filed against petitioner No. 6 & 7 (Annexure No. 5) as well as the impugned summoning orders dated 17.03.2018 & 17.05.2018 (Annexure No. 1 & 2) and the order dated 20.12.2024 for issuance of non-bailable warrant (Annexure No. 6) along with the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 670/2023, titled as State Vs. Ram Shankar & Others, pending in the Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ayodhya U/S- 3 of Prevention of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Patranga, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, arising out of Crime No. 293/2017, U/S 3 of Act of 1984 registered at Police Station Patranga, District -Faizabad/Ayodhya."

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant 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.293 of 2017, on 10.11.2017 the case of the prosecution against the applicant is to the effect that 14 individuals including the applicants namely Sukhlal s/o Sundar, Ram Shankar s/o Rati Pal, Parshuram s/o Sundar, Changu s/o Sundar, Ram Milan s/o Sagar, Ram Sahare s/o Changu and Hariram @ Kallu s/o Maikoolal encroached part of Gata No.273 Hectare, which is recorded as 'Khalihan' i.e. Gaon Sabha land/public utility land. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants under Section 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 3 of the Act of 1984 and thereafter the trial court, without application of mind, vide orders dated 17.03.2018 and 17.05.2018 summoned the applicants and other accused under Section 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 Sections 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 proceedings under Sections 2/3 of Act, 1984.

8. He further submitted that a perusal of Paras 14 to 22 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhakant (supra) would show that t