1

AFR

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14192 of 2021

Applicant :- Srikant

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate

General alongwith Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional

Government Advocate-I and Ms. Akansha Gaur, learned State

Law Officer for the State opposite party.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ has been filed seeking to quash the

charge sheet dated 14.05.2015 as well as the cognizance order

dated 06.04.2016 and also the entire proceedings of Case

No.210 of 2016 (State vs. Srikant and Others), arising out of

Case Crime No.149 of 2015, under Section 3/4 of the

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1894², Police

Station Jigna, District Mirzapur pending before the 4^th

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mirzapur.

3. The records of the case indicate that the criminal

proceedings were initiated pursuant to an FIR dated

26.03.2015 lodged against the applicant, which was registered

as Case Crime No.149 of 2015, under Section 3/4 of the PDPP

Act, Police Station Jigna, District Mirzapur. The case was

investigated and a charge sheet dated 14.05.2015 was placed

whereupon cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on

06.04.2016 and the case was registered as Criminal Case

1

The Code

2

PDPP Act

2

No.210 of 2016.

4. The principal ground, which has been sought to be urged to

seek quashment of the proceedings, is that the allegation in the

FIR being in regard to the encroachment over Gram Sabha

land, the provisions of the PDPP Act could not have been

invoked to initiate criminal proceedings. It is also submitted

that the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006³ provides complete

procedure for eviction of an unauthorized occupation from

Gram Sabha land and in view of the same, criminal

proceedings which have been initiated, are an abuse of process

of court and are liable to be quashed. In support of his

submission learned counsel has placed reliance upon the

judgment in the case of Munshi Lal and Another Vs. State of

U.P. and Another⁴.

5. Controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned

Additional Advocate General submitted that the proceedings

for eviction of unauthorized occupation, as provided under

Section 67 of the Revenue Code, are of a summary nature and

there is no bar in initiating of criminal proceedings under the

PDPP Act in case of damage to public property which would

include within its purview Gram Sabha property also. It is

submitted that the scope of criminal proceedings and the

proceedings for eviction under the Revenue Code are entirely

different and there is no bar in the same being simultaneously

proceeded with.

6. Based on the rival contentions the question which falls for

consideration is as to whether in respect of allegations relating

to damage to Gram Sabha properties, only proceedings for

eviction under Section 67 of the Revenue Code can be

initiated, or criminal proceedings under the provisions of the

3

Revenue Code

4

(2020) 113 ACC 455

3

PDPP Act can also be proceeded with.

7. The PDPP Act (3 of 1984) was enacted to provide for

prevention of damage to public properties and the matters

connected therewith. For ease of reference the aforesaid Act

i.e. The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (3

of 1984) is being reproduced in its entirety:-

“1. Short title, extent and commencement.— (1) This Act

maybe called the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,

1984.

(2) It extends to the whole of India.

(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 28th day of

January, 1984.

2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise

requires,—

(a) "mischief" shall have the s