Allahabad High Court
Pramod Chaudhary And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176133
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29152 of 2025
Pramod Chaudhary And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rayoof Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceeding including chargesheet dated 15.08.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 13.01.2025 in Case No. 20 of 2025 (State vs. Pramod Chaudhary and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 169 of 2024, under section 447 of IPC and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police station Rudhauli, District Basti, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No.9, Basti.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that opposite party no.2 made complaint against the applicants regarding construction of road over Gata No. 314. In pursuance of complaint made by opposite party no. 2, a first information report dated 28.06.2024 bearing Case Crime No. 169 of 2024 under Section 447 IPC and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against applicants. The applicants have, thus, caused damage and loss to the public property which is the land vested in Gram Sabha. After lodging of the FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer started inquiry and after conclusion of the same, preferred chargesheet dated 15.08.2024 against applicants which impugned the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for applicants has challenged the chargesheet on several other ground inter-alia precisely on the ground that lodging of the first information report taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions cannot be invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or loss caused to the Gram Sabha land. As far as the allegations of commission of offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 I.P.C. is concerned, it is contended that no such offence can be made out from the allegations in the first information report as even the date of entry of the applicants over the Gram Sabha land has not been indicated.
5. In any case, the question as to whether applicants have illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha, can only be adjudicated by the Revenue Authorities. The proper proceeding for eviction of the unauthorized occupant can be undertaken under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006. The short-cut procedure adopted by the Lekhpal of the village concerned is nothing but with a view to harass the applicants.
6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments raised by learned counsel for applicants.
7. While dealing with similar issue, co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Munshi Lal and Another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2020 (Vol.8) ADJ 311, quashed the entire proceeding u/s 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and held that as far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to Gram Sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court. As far as the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is concerned, the same has been enacted with the specific purpose. the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act shows that it was enacted with a view to curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion.
8. As far as the allegation of criminal offence under Section 447 IPC to constitute criminal trespass, the prosecution has to prove and the Court has to return a finding on the evidence that the trespass was committed with one of the intents enumerated in Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has, thus, not only to allege but also to prove that the entry or unlawful occupation must be with an intent; (i) to commit an offence; or (ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the property". Every 'trespass' by itself is not criminal. In absence of any such finding, the conviction under Section 447 IPC cannot be sustained. The offence under Section 447 IPC though is cognizable but is also a compoundable offence triable by any Magistrate, trial of which has to be conducted summarily. A charge under this section should specifically state intent which is alleged. The accused may lay a bonafide claim and right in the land in question. Although he may have no right to the land but he cannot be convicted of criminal trespass unless it is proved by the prosecution that he did so with an intention to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession or to commit an offence. The complainant need not be necessarily a person in actual physical possession of the land in question on the date of entry of the trespasser, i.e. the accused person. He may be a person to whom the land in question belonged or deemed to have been vested. The person who actually owns the land or property is the competent person to lodge the complaint.
9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that present case is squarely covered with the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Munshi Lal (supra) and as such the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants pursuant to Section of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, cannot but be said to be an abuse of the process of law or the Court. The continuation of criminal proceedings, in the considered opinion of the Court, being an abuse of process of the Court, ends of the justice requires that the said proceedings be quashed.
10. Invoking inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, entire proceedings of the Case No. 20 of 2025 (State vs. Pramod Chaudhary and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 169 of 2024, under section 447 of IPC and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police station Rudhauli, District Basti, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No.9, Basti is hereby quashed only in respect of applicants namely, Pramod Chaudhary, Jagdish Chaudhary and Jitendra @ Monu Chaudhary.
11. The instant application stands allowed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
October 6, 2025
Rakesh
