Allahabad High Court
Sachchidanand Yadav Alias Pappu And ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:166821
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29302 of 2025
Sachchidanand Yadav Alias Pappu And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Rajiv Kumar Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been preferred to quash the chargesheet dated 09.07.2024 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in Case No.6436 of 2025 (State Vs. Pramesh @ Tunni Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.81 of 2024, under section 447, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Sidhari, District- Azamgarh.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that a first information report dated 13.03.2024 bearing Case Crime No.81 of 2024 was lodged by opposite party no.2 in pursuance to Section 447, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against applicants alleging that applicants have illegally encroached over ten places which belong to public property. After lodging of the FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer started inquiry and after conclusion of the same, preferred charge-sheet on dated 09.07.2024 against applicants whereupon learned court concerned has taken cognizance of offence vide order dated 17.02.2025, which impugned the present application.
4. Learned counsel for applicants has challenged the entire proceedings of the present case on several other grounds 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. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that in the FIR itself, it has not been mentioned that which land has been illegally encroached by applicants pertains to public property. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that learned court concerned has acted illegally by way of taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Section 447, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984. As far as the allegations of commission of offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC is concerned, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the same cannot be attracted unless it is proved by the prosecution that they did so with an intention to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession or to commit an offence. Learned counsel for applicants has also argued that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 just because a civil suit preferred at the behest of applicants against opposite party no.2 which is pending before learned court concerned.
5. In any case, the question as to whether applicants had illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha, recorded as public property, 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 opposite party no.2 who is also a private person, is nothing but with a view to harass the applicants.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application, 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 vide order 6.8.2020 passed in Application u/s 482 no. 9964 of 2020 (Munshi Lal and Another vs. State of U.P. and another), quashed the entire proceeding u/s 447 IPC and Section 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 I.P.C. 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. In sofar as implication of applicants under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the same has been fastened upon the applicants in connection with the offence under Section 447 IPC and Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984
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 447, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 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 cognizance/summoning order dated 17.02.2025 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. 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, chargesheet dated 09.07.2024 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in Case No.6436 of 2025 (State Vs. Pramesh @ Tunni Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.81 of 2024, under section 447, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Sidhari, District- Azamgarh, is hereby quashed.
11. The instant application stands allowed accordingly.
12. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the revenue authorities to proceed against applicants, if required, in accordance with the strict provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.) September 17, 2025 Vivek Kr.