Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 916
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Jitendra – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. And Another – Respondent
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 7662 of 2023 at Lucknow
Petitioner: Neeranjan and Pratyush Mishra
Respondent: G.A.
The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act applies only where actual damage to public property occurs; temporary occupation without damage does not invoke the Act.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Sections 2 and 3 - Application to quash order rejecting discharge application - Allegations of mischief causing damage to public property - Applicant claimed to be minor at the time of FIR and denied intention to grasp public property - Court found that no actual damage was caused, thus PDPP Act not applicable - Order quashed for failure to appreciate evidence. (Paras 24, 25)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 239 - Discharge application - Court must consider material evidence before rejecting discharge - Failure to do so constitutes manifest illegality. (Paras 7, 24)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to quash an order rejecting a discharge application in a case involving allegations of mischief under the PDPP Act, asserting that he was a minor and that the allegations were false. The FIR was lodged regarding temporary occupation of public property without causing damage.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the trial court failed to consider the evidence and committed manifest illegality in rejecting the discharge application.
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant's actions constituted a violation of the PDPP Act and if the trial court properly assessed the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the PDPP Act applies only where actual damage to public property occurs, and temporary occupation without damage does not invoke the Act. The trial court's failure to appreciate evidence led to the quashing of the order.
Result: Application allowed; order quashed.
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; or
- (ii) any State Government; or
- (iii) any local authority; or
- (iv) any corporation established by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State Act; or
