Court No. - 49

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14150 of 2022

Applicant :- Randev Singh And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of

the Charge-Sheet No.755 of 2021 dated 18.09.2021 arising out of Case Crime

No.783 of 2021, under Sections 434, 482, 484, 489, 403 I.P.C. and Section 3/4

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as

'PDPP Act'), Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat as well as the cognizance

order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

Heard Sri D. R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants and learned

A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that lodging of the F.I.R. taking aid

of the PDPP Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of law, in as much as

such provisions cannot be invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of

damage or loss caused to the gaon sabha land. As far as allegations of Sections

434, 482, 484, 489, 403 I.P.C. is concerned, it is contended that no such offence

is made out from the allegations set out in the F.I.R. The applicants have neither

misappropriated any movable property nor counterfeited a mark used by a

public servant or used a false property mark. The Investigating Officer

submitted the charge sheet in a casual and routine manner. The Magistrate has

acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance of

the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer.

Learned counsel further contended that no offence is made out from the

allegations in the F.I.R. as even the date of entry of the applicants over the gaon

sabha land, the date of subsequent proceedings in which the applicants were

evicted and the date of subsequent tress-passe over the gaon sabha land has not

been indicated. It is further contended that the applicants had not committed any

trespass on the public land and the house of the applicants is situated on their

abadi land.

Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that till date it has not been

determined by any proceeding under the Revenue Code, 2006 that the applicants

have encroached upon the public land. Until and unless a determination is made

by the Revenue Authorities that the applicants have encroached upon the public

land in a proceedings drawn under the Revenue Code, 2006, the continuance of

criminal proceedings against the applicants is sheer abuse of the process of law

and is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In order to buttress

his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement and order

dated 06.08.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc.

Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.9964 of 2020 (Munshi Lal and another Vs.

State of U.P. & another).

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of charge sheet as well as

cognizance order and submitted that once the Judicial Magistrate has recorded

his satisfaction to the effect that prima-facie case is made out it cannot be said

that the continuance of the criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of law.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-

respondent and perused the record.

At the outset, the admitted position is that complete mechanism has been

provided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 empowering the Goan

Sabha or any other Authority to take possession of any land under the provisions

of the Revenue Code, where such property is entrusted or deemed to be

entrusted to a Goan Sabha or other local Authority and is damaged or

misappropriated.

Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides as under:-

"Section 67. Power to prevent damage, misappropriation and wrongfu