Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 919
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Sadik Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another – Respondent
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 3236 of 2025
Petitioner: Mangal Sen Yadav , Deepansi , Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava and Pankaj Verma
Respondent: G.A.
Criminal proceedings for land encroachment are inappropriate when specific remedies exist under the U.P. Revenue Code, emphasizing the need for judicial scrutiny.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Sections 2 and 3 - Quashing of charge sheet - Application filed to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a case of alleged illegal construction on Gram Sabha land - Court held that criminal proceedings are inappropriate when specific remedies exist under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - The FIR was deemed an abuse of process of law due to lack of proper judicial application - The court emphasized that disputes regarding land ownership should be resolved in revenue courts, not through criminal proceedings. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Inherent Powers - The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law, especially when no prima facie case is established against the accused. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to quash a charge sheet for alleged illegal construction on Gram Sabha land, arguing that the appropriate remedy lies under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, not through criminal proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were an abuse of the process of law, lacking proper judicial scrutiny and application of mind.
Issues: The main issues included whether criminal proceedings were appropriate for alleged encroachment on Gram Sabha land and the proper legal recourse for such disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that criminal proceedings for encroachment should not be initiated when specific remedies exist under the U.P. Revenue Code, emphasizing the need for judicial scrutiny in such matters.
Result: The application is allowed, and the entire criminal proceedings are quashed.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers:
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge- Sheet dated 08/04/2023, filed before Learned A.C.J.M. - Court No.21, Sultanpur, cognizance dated 06/07/2023 and Summing order dated 06/07/2023, in Criminal Case No. 522/2023, "State Vs. Mahsan Ali & Others." F.I.R No. 0073/2023, U/S- 2, 3, Prevention of Damage to Public Property, Act-1984 P.S Kudwar, District- Sultanpur, as next date was fixed as 03/05/2025 for appearance, and as contained in Annexure-1 and 2-collectively to this Petition.
To stay the further proceeding in before Learned Learned A.C.J.M.,-Court No. 21, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 522/2023, "State Vs. Mahsan Ali & Others." F.I.R No. 0073/2023, U/S- 2, 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property, Act-1984 P.S Kudwar, District-Sultanpur, against the Petitioner, during the pendency of this Petition before this Hon'ble Court in. the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an FIR dated 12.03.2023 has been lodged by the respondent no.2 i.e. Sri Dinesh (Lekhpal) against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant is illegally raising construction on the land which is entered as Khalihan in revenue records.
4. It is further submitted that if in case, the applicant is illegally in possession of some land which belongs to the Gram Sabha, the appropriate proceedings which is to be initiated against the applicant i.e. to file a case under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and lodging of the criminal case is not an appropriate proceedings to initiate in the matter. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhakant and Another vs. State of U.P. and Ors reported in 2023 SCC Online All 397. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
"(14). Now coming to yet another aspect of the issue, learned counsel for the applicants in order to buttress their contention have drawn attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code which speaks about the power to prevent damages, misappropriation and wrongful occupation of Gram Panchayat property:-
(i) Where any property entrusted or deemed to be entrusted under the provisions of this Code to a Gram Panchayat or other local authority is damaged or misappropriated, or where any Gram Panchayat or other authority is entitled to take possession of any land under the provisions of this Code and such land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions, the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or other authority or the Lekhpal concerned, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector concerned in the manner prescribed.
(ii) Where from the information received under sub-section (i) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in sub-section (i) has been damaged or misappropriated, or any person is in occupation of any land referred to in that sub- section in contravention of the provisions of this Code, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him and why he should not be evicted from such land.
(iii) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under sub-section (ii) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time as the Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Assistant Collector may direct that such person shall be evicted from t
