Allahabad High Court
Bhola Nath vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 13 December, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9322 of 2022
Applicant :- Bhola Nath
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Pratap Pandey,Rameshwar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard Sri Diwakar Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings as well as charge sheet dated 21.05.2019 and the summoning order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Faizabad in Case No.626 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R./ Case Crime No.228 of 2018, under Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Kumarganj, District Faizabad upon the charge sheet filed in pursuance of aforesaid first information report.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused/ applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report has been filed against the accused/ applicant on the basis of false and fabricated facts.
His further submission is that according to first information report, the accused/ applicant is alleged to have encroached upon a chak road whereas his submission is that the accused/ applicant is occupying his own land. The proceeding for correction of map has already been undertaken and a report submitted pursuant thereto reveals that the accused/ applicant is not an encroacher. Therefore, he submits that any proceeding for the offence under Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court and a malicious prosecution also.
In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court passed in Application U/s 482 No.9964 of 2020 (Munshi Lal and another vs. State of U.P. and another) on 06.08.2020 and another order passed by this Court in Application U/s 482 No.9035 of 2022 (Mahipal and others vs. State of U.P. and another) on 06.12.2022 wherein interim order was passed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that no offence under Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act is made out against the accused/ applicant.
His further submission is that the matter itself is at its very initial stage. No substantial progress in the proceeding has been made so far. Therefore, this cannot be quashed having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2044 and in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
His next submission is that in view of law laid down by a subsequent decision rendered in Application U/s 482 No.14192 of 2021 (Srikant vs. State of U.P.) by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 23.09.2021, it cannot be said that proceedings under Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act cannot be initiated for allegedly causing damage to such property.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that according to the first information report, the applicant is alleged to have encroached upon the chak road. Any possible defense, as to why he allegedly came to occupy any such land, cannot be ascertained by this Court, after having regard to various reports which have been filed by the accused/ applicant along with the instant application, as the same is not permissible in law. It is a subject matter of trial which can well be appreciated and decided by the learned trial court during trial of the case in accordance with law. It cannot be said that in the present case, no cognizable offence against the applicant is made out.
Thus, having regard to the aforesaid and having regard to the law regarding quashing as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and Ramveer Upadhyay's case (supra), prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings as well as charge sheet dated 21.05.2019 and the impugned summoning order dated 10.12.2021, is refused.
However, it is needless to mention that if the applicant appears before the court below and applies for grant of bail, the court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in MANU/SC/1024/2021 and in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 13.12.2022
cks/-
