# Mukhiya Gurjar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 615
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-08
- **Case number:** J. Application U/S 482. No. 6818 of 2002
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukhiya-gurjar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50970
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352 &
436 - Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 7 -
Application
for
Quashing
Charge-Sheet
and
Proceedings - Allegations of False Implication -
Prima Facie Offense - Scope of Inherent Powers
The applicants, Mukhiya Gurjar and others, filed an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
charge-sheet and proceedings in Case No. 881 of
2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 436
IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad,
pending before the 5th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate. The FIR alleged that the applicants,
part of a mob, attacked a police outpost, set
government property on fire, and attempted to
harm police personnel, prompted by the police's
alleged negligence in addressing local crimes like
dacoity, murder, and rape. The applicants claimed
the allegations were false, motivated by political
rivalry targeting Samajwadi Party supporters, and
unsupported by independent witnesses or injuries.
The St. countered that the incident involved
damage to government property, eight arrests on
the spot, and sufficient evidence via police
Statements to justify the charge-sheet. Held: The
court, citing Pramod Kumar Vs St. (NCT) of Delhi
(AIR 2013 SC 3344), Govindaraju Vs St. (AIR 2012
SC 1292), CBI Vs Ravi Shankar Srivastava (AIR
2006 SC 2872), Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs St. of
Maharashtra (AIR 2019 SC 847), Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar Vs St. of Maharashtra (AIR 2019
SC 327), St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma (1991 CrLJ
1438), and Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P. (AIR 2021
SC 3931), dismissed the application. The court
held that a prima facie offense was established,
and Section 482 powers cannot be used for roving
inquiries
into
factual
disputes
or
evidence
sufficiency, which are matters for trial. The
absence of injuries did not negate the offense
under Section 307 IPC, and police testimony was
deemed reliable absent contrary evidence. The
court
directed
the
trial
court
to
proceed
expeditiously.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Mukhiya Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
615
proceeding initiated against the applicant
under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is a
pure abuse of legal process, and to secure
ends of justice the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.1036 of 2014 (State
Vs. Yashpal Chail and others) under
Sections 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic
Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar
pending
in
the
Court
of
C.J.M.,
Muzaffarnagar are hereby quashed.

21 . The instant Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. is allowed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 615
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA,
J.

Application U/S 482. No. 6818 of 2002

Mukhiya Gurjar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri K.K. Dwivedi, Sri R.P. Dwivedi, Sri
Dhirendra Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352 &
436 - Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 7 -
Application
for
Quashing
Charge-Sheet
and
Proceedings - Allegations of False Implication -
Prima Facie Offense - Scope of Inherent Powers
The applicants, Mukhiya Gurjar and others, filed an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
charge-sheet and proceedings in Case No. 881 of
2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 436
IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad,
pending before the 5th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate. The FIR alleged that the applicants,
part of a mob, attacked a police outpost, set
government property on fire, and attempted to
harm police personnel, prompted by the police's
alleged negligence in addressing local crimes like
dacoity, murder, and rape. The applicants claimed
the allegations were false, motivated by political
rivalry targeting Samajwadi Party supporters, and
unsupported by independent witnesses or injuries.
The St. countered that the incident involved
damage to government property, eight arrests on
the spot, and sufficient evidence via police
Statements to justify the charge-sheet. Held: The
court, citing Pramod Kumar Vs St. (NCT) of Delhi
(AIR 2013 SC 3344), Govindaraju Vs St. (AIR 2012
SC 1292), CBI Vs Ravi Shankar Srivastava (AIR
2006 SC 2872), Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs St. of
Maharashtra (AIR 2019 SC 847), Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar Vs St. of Maharashtra (AIR 2019
SC 327), St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma (1991 CrLJ
1438), and Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P. (AIR 2021
SC 3931), dismissed the application. The court
held that a prima facie offense was established,
and Section 482 powers cannot be used for roving
inquiries
into
factual
disputes
or
evidence
sufficiency, which are matters for trial. The
absence of injuries did not negate the offense
under Section 307 IPC, and police testimony was
deemed reliable absent contrary evidence. The
court
directed
the
trial
court
to
proceed
expeditiously.

List of Cases cited:

1. Pramod Kumar Vs St. (NCT) of Delhi, AIR
2013 SC 3344

2.
Govindaraju
@
Govinda
Vs
St.
by
Sriramapuram Police Station, AIR 2012 SC 1292

3. CBI Vs Ravi Shankar Srivastava, AIR 2006 SC
2872

4.
Kamal
Shivaji
Pokarnekar
Vs
St.
of
Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 847

5. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs St. of
Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 327

6. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1991 CrLJ 1438
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2021 SC
3931

8. Joseph M. Puthussery Vs T.S. John, AIR 2011
SC 906

9. Laxmi Raj Shetty Vs St. of T.N., AIR 1988 SC
1274

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Bahadur
Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri K.K.
Dwivedi learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A for the
State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C has been moved by the applicants to
quash the Charge-sheet and entire Criminal
Proceeding of Case No. 881 of 2001 (State
Versus Tak Chandra and others under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352 and 436
I.P.C and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act,
Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad,
pending in the Court of 05th Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

3. The applicants has taken ground
that the entire allegations of the F.I.R are
totally false, fabricated and concocted. It is
alleged in the F.I.R that some persons, who
were armed with county made pistol, lathi,
sticks, etc. attacked on the police chauki
and destroyed by way of fire also but no
person received any injury and no police
constable
or
police
employee
was
medically examined in any hospital. The
present case is of no injury. Prior to the
alleged incident the local public informed
the concerned Chauki In-Charge regarding
the incident of Dacoity, murder and rape in
the concerned area, due to negligence of
the local police. When the opposite party
no. 2 did not consider the matter and did
not take any necessary action, the local
public organized/held a Panchayat headed
by applicant no. 1, who was an active
member
and
a
strong
supporter
of
Samajwadi Party, who had also contested
Parliamentary elections two times from
Baghpat Constituency and also participated
in election of M.L.A. He was the President
of All India Pathik Sena. In this regard a
public meeting was held near the Police
Chauki, in which an ultimatum regarding
Dharana and hunger strike was also given
to the higher authorities, due to which the
opposite party no. 2 lodged a false report
with
some
allegations
against
the
applicants. Some News items were also
published in Daily Amar Ujala and some
others News Papers from which it is fully
proved that due to the negligence of local
police, the incidents had occurred in the
concerned area. Several persons and
several parties were also present, but the
F.I.R has been lodged only against the
applicants and some others, who belong to
Samajwadi Party due to mala fide intention
to save the opposite party no. 2 and some
police personnels.

4. In the aforesaid Panchayat, Tak
Chandra Pradhan, who has contested
Parliamentary Election under the Symbol
of B.S.P, one Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma,
President of Lok Dal, District Ghaziabad
and one Kartar Hithora, Member Zila
Panchayat, who belong to Lok Dal Party,
Jai Bhagwan, Block Pramukh, Loni, of
B.S.P., Rajendra Singh, Up-Pramukh, of
Lok Dal Party, Madhu Sharma, of B.J.P.,
Daya
Nand
real
brothers
of
Roop
Chaudhary, Present M.L.A. were also
present at the alleged place of occurrence,
but the F.I.R has been lodged only against
the persons, who are active member and
supporter of Samajwadi Party. The police
personnels themselves destroyed the old
4 All. Mukhiya Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
617
vehicle in concerned police Chauki by way
of firing and a false report has been lodged
against the applicants. The Police Chauki
was fully safe and no article/material has
been destroyed in the concerned Police
Chauki by the applicants.

5. When the F.I.R was lodged, the
applicants filed a Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 7362 of 1999 - Mukhiya
Gurjar And Others Vs. State of U.P, in
which the Hon'ble Court stayed the arrest
of the applicants on 07.12.1999 and when
the then S.H.O. had taken necessary action
against the accused persons relating to
Crime No. 626 of 1999, under Sections 394
/ 302 I.P.C and also other matters relating
to POCSO/rape, dacoity etc, then the
applicant no. 2 constituted a Committee
and demanded compensation in this regard.
The
Committee
also
moved
a
representation to the Chief Minister of the
State of U.P. The higher authority admitted
the fact that due to negligence of the police
personnels three persons were murdered in
Nithora
and
after
concluding
the
investigation the police has submitted
charge-sheet against the applicants, which
is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the
application.

6.

The
learned
A.C.J.M
5th,
Ghaziabad,
vide
his
order
dated
30.05.2002, issued N.B.W against the
applicants and fixed 20th July, 2002 for
appearance. The I.O. of the case has
submitted a charge-sheet without any
evidence and all the police personnels have
given similar statement. It is alleged that
about 100-150 persons armed with different
type of weapons attacked on the police
party, but no police personnel received any
grievous injury. The I.O of the case has
recorded the statement of Sri U.P.S
Chauhan, the then Chauki In-Charge, who
repeated the same version as stated in the
F.I.R. Except the police personnel, no
public witness was present and supported
the prosecution version. The entire criminal
proceeding is being concocted by the local
police only to save themselves from the
mass demand made by the said committee.
On the basis of the charge-sheet, the
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance,
which is unjustified and it is also an abuse
of process.

7. One Sri Brijendra Singh has given
a reminder to the Chief Minister, State of
UP. regarding bad administration and
corruption of local police, in which it is
clarified that three family members lost
their lives due to loose administration and
negligence of local police of Loni. The
complaint was also moved before the
National Human Rights Commission and
notices were issued to the Chief Secretary
and D.G.P, U.P. Since there is not a single
evidence against the applicants regarding
commission of the alleged offence/crime,
therefore, the entire criminal proceedings
initiated against the applicants is wholly
illegal and is an abuse of process.

8. From the perusal of the F.I.R and
the relevant documents, no offence under
the aforesaid Sections are made out,
therefore the charge-sheet and the entire
criminal proceedings in Case Crime No.
881 of 2001 - State Vs. Tek Chand &
others in the aforesaid Sections, Police
Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, pending
in the Court of A.C.J.M. 5th, Ghaziabad be
set aside.

9. All the relevant papers have been
annexed with the affidavit.

10. From the side of respondents a
counter affidavit has been filed against the
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contentions and prayer of the application,
in which allegations of the applicants made
in the application and the affidavit have
been denied and it has been submitted that
the incident had taken place at the police
out post Banthala, P.S Loni, Ghaziabad, on
02.12.1999 for which an F.I.R under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 436 I.P.C
and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment
Act was registered at P.S Loni, Ghaziabad
in respect of the offence committed by the
accused persons. In connection of the said
offences eight persons were arrested on the
spot and another persons managed to
escape. In the aforesaid incident the
vehicles belonging to the police personnels,
Government property was set on fire by the
accused persons. After completion of the
investigation, a charge-sheet has been
submitted. The accused-applicants have not
filed the entire records, which are collected
during the course of investigation, which
amounts to concealment of material facts
from the Hon'ble Court and as such the
present application is liable to be rejected.

11. Apart from this, the applicants
have remedy to raise all the points before
the concerned court at the time of framing
of charge, which can easily be decided
there. In view of availability of alternative
remedy before the trial court, the present
application is not maintainable and is
liable to be rejected. If a lawful meeting is
held, the Police has nothing to do, but
since the mob gathered there at the
instance of the applicants and other
persons, took the law in their own hands
by
setting
ablaze
the
Government
property, the present action has been taken
in accordance with law.

12. It is wrong to say that the police
has lodged a false and frivolous report and
has also set the articles on fire. There are as
may as seven witnesses of the facts. The
news items are not the substantial piece of
evidence, hence, no reliance can be placed
on the same.

13. The F.I.R has been lodged against
those persons, who have taken law in their
own hands without any ill-will or malafide
intention.

14. The contention of para 12 of the
affidavit is totally false and denied. In fact
the government records, such as case diary,
wireless set etc. have been damaged by the
miscreants. It is also wrong to say that the
Police himself has destroyed the old
vehicles. There is nothing on record before
this Hon'ble Court to substantiate the
contents of the application. The statutory
right of hearing may be afforded by the
applicants at the time of framing of charge.

15. The accused persons have failed
to appear before the concerned court,
hence, non-bailable warrants were issued
against them in accordance with law.

16. The incident which has taken
place at Police out post Banthala, P.S. Loni,
District Ghaziabad has been witnessed by
the Police Party and their statements have
also been recorded.

17. In view of the submission of the
charge-sheet, the alleged reminder was of
no avail. At the time of incident the
applicants were also the member of
unlawful assembly who in furtherance of
common object have committed the offence
in question and they cannot escape their
liability of being prosecuted. In view of
availability of alternative remedy before the
trial court at the time of framing of charge,
the present application is premature and is
liable to be dismissed.
4 All. Mukhiya Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
619

18. No rejoinder affidavit has been
filed by the applicants.

19. The learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A have already
advanced their arguments.

20. It has been averred by the learned
counsel for the applicants that there is no
injury to any of the Police Personnel. In
this regard it is argued by the learned
A.G.A that to constitute an offence under
Section 307 I.P.C, there is no need of
injury.

21. Section 307 I.P.C is as under:

"307.
Attempt
to
murder.-
Whoever does any act with such intention
or
knowledge,
and
under
such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if hurt is caused to any person by such
act, the offender shall be liable either to
1[imprisonment for life], or to such
punishment as is herein before mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.-When any
person offending under this section is
under sentence of imprisonment for life, he
may, if hurt is caused, be punished with
death.

Illustrations :-

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to
kill him, under such circumstances that, if
death ensued. A would be guilty of murder.
A is liable to punishment under this section.

(b) A, with the intention of
causing the death of a child of tender years,
exposes it in a desert place. A has
committed the offence defined by this
section, though the death of the child does
not ensue.

(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys
a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed
the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has
committed the offence defined in this
section, and if by such firing he wounds Z,
he is liable to the punishment provided by
the latter part of 3[the first paragraph of]
this section."

22. According to this Court, injury is
not necessary. If an attempt to kill a person
is made, the same is also sufficient to
attract Section 307 I.P.C. In this case from
the evidence on record, it has been prima
facie established that the applicants and the
mob tried their best to damage the property,
to cause injuries to the Police personnels,
but if the Police personnels any how
managed to escape, the same would not
absolve the applicants from their criminal
liability in the eyes of Law.

23. If any dacoity, murder and rape
had taken place, a complaint could be made
to the Higher Authorities for taking
departmental action against the responsible
policemen which had already been made
and Panchayats have already been held.
Demands had already been sent. The matter
has already been in the knowledge of
Higher Police and Executive Authorities.
Under Article 19 of the Constitution of
India,
a
peaceful
demonstration
is
permissible, but in the garb of peaceful
demonstration, one cannot take law in his
own hand. If Police did not take action or
the action taken by the Police was not
satisfactory, the applicants had right to
raise the same through their Political
representatives in Legislative Assembly
and Council or in High Court or the Apex
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court. It is no where mentioned that any
permission was taken from the local
authorities for the alleged gathering or
meeting. It is true that the news of the
News Papers are not the authentic proof of
any fact. It is mere hearsay evidence which
are not admissible as held in Joseph M.
Puthussery Vs. T.S. John, AIR 2011 S.C.
906, Laxmi Raj Shetty Vs. State of T.N
AIR 1988 S.C. 1274.

24. There is no prima-facie proof that
the Police personnels themselves set ablaze
fire and damaged the alleged properties. It
appears that the applicants forgot that any
such demand could be made in right way.
There are documentary and oral evidence
on record to prima-facie establish the guilt
of the applicants. When all the influential
political and social persons were involved
in the matter, it is beyond imagination that
any public person would come forward in
support of the Policemen. In such a
circumstance when there is only evidence
of Police personnels, the same would be
considered as to whether it is cogent,
credible and reliable or not. In such a
circumstance, evidence of public persons
cannot be sought for.

25. In Pramod Kumar Vs. State
(NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 3344,
Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by
Sriramapuram Police Station and another
AIR 2012 SC 1292, it has ben held that the
testimony of Police personnels should be
treated in the same manner as testimony of
any other witness. There is no principle of
law
that
without
corroboration
by
independent witnesses the testimony of
police personnels cannot be relied on. The
presumption that a person acts honestly
applies as much in favour of a police
personnel as of other persons and it is not a
proper judicial approach to distrust and
suspect them without good reasons. As a
rule it cannot be stated that Police officer
can or cannot be sole eye witness in
criminal cases. Statement of Police Officer
can be relied upon and even form basis of
conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy
and is preferably corroborated by other
evidence on record.

26. This application has been moved
under Section 482 Cr.P.C, which is as
under:-

"482. Saving of inherent powers
of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall
be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect
to any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

27. From the above it is very much
clear that a High Court can exercise its
inherent power only to give effect any
order under this Code or to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of Justice.

28. T he powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C cannot be liberally exercised and it
has to be sparingly exercised, in cases,
there is a dire need of exercise of this
power.

29. In CBI Vs. Ravi Shankar
Srivastava, AIR 2006 SC 2872 it is held
that while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court would
not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry
whether the evidence in question is reliable
or
not
or
whether
on
reasonable
appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of trial
judge. The same reason and ground has
4 All. Mukhiya Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
621
been taken by the State through counter
affidavit.

30. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 847, it
has been held that the correctness of the
allegations against accused has to be
decided only in trial. Criminal complaints
cannot be quashed at initial stage of
issuance of process only on ground that
allegations made therein appear to be of
civil nature.

31. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar
Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC
327, it has been held that the expression
"abuse of process of law" or "to secure the
ends of justice" do not confer unlimited
jurisdiction on High Court.

32. In State of Bihar Vs. P.P
Sharma, 1991 CrLJ 1438/ 1448 SC it is
held that the allegations of malafide against
the informant based on the facts after the
lodging of the FIR are of no consequence
and cannot be the basis of quashing the
proceedings. Simply because the IO, while
acting
bonafide,
ruled
out
certain
documents as irrelevant, it is no ground to
assume that he acted malafide. In the case
in hand, the applicants have blamed the IO
that he has not investigated properly the old
vehicles were set on fire by the policemen
and not by the applicants which cannot be
decided under section 482 Cr.P.C.

33. In Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P,
AIR 2021 SC 3931, it is held that if petition
under section 482 Cr.P.C was at the stage
of FIR, in that case the allegations in
FIR/complaint only are required to be
considered and it has to be considered as to
whether a cognizable offence is disclosed
or
not.
However,
thereafter
when
statements
are
recorded,
evidence
is
collected and charge-sheet is filed after
conclusion
of
investigation/
inquiry,
matters stands on different footing and
court
is
required
to
consider
material/evidence
collected
during
investigation. Even at this stage also the
High Court is not required to go into merits
of the allegations and / or enter into merits
of the case as if High Court is excising
appellate jurisdiction. In the cited case the
High
Court
quashed
the
criminal
proceedings even after the submission of
the charge-sheet and even magistrate had
taken cognizance. The Apex court held that
the
High
Court
did not
take
into
consideration material collected during
investigation/ inquiry and even statements
recorded. The order of High Court
regarding quashing the proceedings of the
criminal case was set aside. Similarly in
this case, the IO has submitted the chargesheet long ago after collecting the oral and
documentary evidences and the concerned
court after taking cognizance has also
issued the process against the applicants.
According to this court the principle laid
down in this case is fully applicable in the
case in hand.

34. On the basis of the above
discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the questions raised in the present
application cannot be decided by this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

35. After investigation, a charge-sheet
has been submitted against the applicants,
they are summoned in due course of law.
They have to face the trial. The trial court
has to decide the case according to the
evidence adduced by the prosecution and
the defence. The proceeding under Section
482 Cr.P.C is not an alternative remedy of
the trial. When there was enough material
before the magistrate for the purposes of
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issuing process, the accused is not entitled
to challenge that order under this section.
In this application it is not denied that the
properties were not damaged and the
vehicles etc. were not set ablaze. Therefore,
the High Court cannot exercise its power
under section 482 Cr.P.C if the prima-facie
offence has been made out on the basis of
the allegations made in the complaint
without going into the truth or otherwise of
those allegations. The truthfulness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
complaint, cannot be dealt with at this
stage. If some offence is made out on a
bare perusal of the complaint or FIR, then
such a complaint or FIR cannot be quashed
by invoking inherent jurisdiction under
section 482 of the code. The sufficiency of
evidence or material cannot also be gone
into, at this stage. In a proceeding under
this section, it is not open to the High Court
to go into the question of fact. It is settled
law that the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction would not make any
roving inquiry into the questions of facts
and record any findings. The High Court
will not enter into inquiry of disputed facts
and thereafter hold in favour of the
accused.

36. Thus this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C is devoid of merit and
is liable to be dismissed accordingly.

O R D E R

37. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C is accordingly dismissed. Stay
order, if any, stands vacated.

38. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the Trial Court to proceed with trial in
accordance with law.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 622
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 7324 of 2023

Shankar Nath Pnadey & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Gopal Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- Quashing of
Summoning Order - The applicants sought to
quash the summoning order and criminal
proceedings under Section 3 of the Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP
Act) for alleged encroachment on Gaon Sabha
land - Held, the High Court's inherent powers
under Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 -Section
482can quash proceedings when they constitute
an abuse of process, particularly when the
allegations do not establish an offence under
the charged provisions. (Paras 2, 6, 19, 20)

B. Applicability of PDPP Act, 1984 - Scope
and Purpose - The applicants were charged for
erecting barbed wire fencing on Gaon Sabha
land to protect crops - Held, the PDPP Act is
intended to curb vandalism and damage to
public
property
during
riots
or
public
commotion, not minor encroachments like
fencing,
which
are
governed
by
specific
provisions under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
(Paras 5, 9, 10, 11)

C. U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Remedy for
Encroachment - The applicants removed the
alleged encroachment after objection by the
Lekhpal, as confirmed by a report dated
30.10.2019 - Held, Section 67 of the U.P.
Revenue
Code
provides
a
comprehensive
mechanism for addressing encroachments on