Prahlad And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9019 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Reserved 
 
In Chamber
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3586 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Prahlad And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 12.10.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No.596 of 2022, under Sections 434, 447, 352, 353, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna, District- Kushinagar.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction of the petitioner from land allegedly of the Gaon Sabha is pending consideration. The petitioner is alleged to be in unauthorized occupation of plot no.596 area 0.134 hectare.

It is next contended that the petitioner has already filed a suit for permanent injunction, which is also pending consideration.

During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, is malicious and abuse of the process. In any case, the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and, therefore, criminal prosecution of the petitioner is not justified.

The issue being raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was also subject matter of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1131 of 2021, Devnath Yadav vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others.

In the aforesaid case, it has been held that where a set of facts incur both civil and criminal liability, both proceedings can continue simultaneously. The judgment goes on to hold as follows:-

"However, we find that in view of Section 425 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, the action of the petitioner clearly falls within the purview of these two sections, especially when construction of a boundary wall over public property is clearly admitted by petitioner.

Under the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of the judgement in the case of Munshi Lal cited by him, as in the foregoing part of the judgement, we have come to the conclusion that the provision of Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 is clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 contain penal provisions. Proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are only for eviction of unauthorized occupant. Therefore, also the two proceedings can continue simultaneously.

Insofar as the submission that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for injunction, the same, in our opinion will not benefit the petitioner in any manner as the suit prima facie is not maintainable being barred by the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

In view of the above and since the allegations in the first information report constitute a cognizable offence, the same cannot be quashed.

The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.03.2023

Mayank /RKM