# Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1173
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 23998 of 2023
- **Bench:** Gajendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramnarayan-pandey-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50747
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482 -The Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984Section 3(1) -The U.P.Revenue Code,
2006-Section 67---Whether in respect of
allegations relating to damage to Gram Sabha
properties, only proceedings for eviction under
Section 67 of the Revenue Code can be
initiated, or criminal proceedings under the
provisions of the PDPP Act can also be
proceeded with?--- The proceedings under the
PDPP Act are also distinct from matters which
are covered under the Revenue Code, and in
particular Section 67 thereof, which provides
procedure for eviction and recovery of damages
on account of unauthorized occupation and use
of land belonging to the St. under the
management of Gaon Sabha. The procedure
provided there-under is summary in nature and
is purely a civil remedy with no criminality
attached. On the other hand, any act which
constitutes a "mischief" within the meaning of
Section 2(a) of the PDPP Act, wherein the
definition of the word "mischief" has been
assigned the same meaning as in Section 425 of
Penal Code, and would relate to any act which
causes destruction of any property, or any
change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, or affects it injuriously, and the property
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is a "public property" as described under Section
2(b) of the PDPP Act, the same would constitute
a criminal offence under Section 3 and would be
visited
by
penal
consequences,
namely,
imprisonment and fine--- Criminal proceedings,
which have been initiated in the present case
pursuant to FIR lodged under the the PDPP Act,
thus cannot be held to be vitiated for the reason
that in respect of the allegations relating to
encroachment/damage to Gaon Sabha land,
only proceedings for eviction and recovery of
damages can be initiated under the provisions
of
the
Revenue
Code
and
no
criminal
proceedings for causing damage or destruction
of public property can be initiated under the
PDPP Act. (Para 31 & 33)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1173
passed by the Returning Officer, the
impression does not appear to be true.
Therefore, the impression of ElectionPetitioner is baseless which is also
supported and evident by subsequent
events, when both parties have admitted
that said National Political Party has still
confidence on Election-Petitioner and his
family members and party has set up his
family members in other elections as its
candidate.

30. It is an old saying that in a
political life, there are no permanent
enemies
or
friends.
Both
ElectionPetitioner and Returned Candidate have
declared themselves to be a dedicated
workers of the said National Political Party
and it also appears that this election petition
was filed only to clear a cloud of doubt
which might have created by rejection of
Nomination Form of Election-Petitioner. As
referred
above,
this
was
only
a
misconception of the Election-Petitioner.

31. In the end this order is concluded
by reproducing a saying of an unknown
author, "Great rivalries don't have to be
built on hatred. They are built on respect,
on a respect for excellence".

32. इस स्तर पर किम्ि संस्िृत सुभाकषताकि िा उल्िेि
िरिा भी उकचत रहेर्ा:

"चन्दिं शीतिं िोिे, चन्दिादकप चन्रमाैः।

चन्रचन्दियोमगध्ये शीतिा साधु संर्कतैः।।"

(इस दुकिया में चन्दि िो सबसे अकधि शीति मािा
िाता ह , पर चन्रमा चन्दि से भी शीति होता ह , िेकिि एि
अच्छा कमत्र चन्रमा और चन्दि दोिों से शीति होता ह )

33. With aforesaid observations, this
election petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1173
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 23998 of 2023

Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482 -The Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984Section 3(1) -The U.P.Revenue Code,
2006-Section 67---Whether in respect of
allegations relating to damage to Gram Sabha
properties, only proceedings for eviction under
Section 67 of the Revenue Code can be
initiated, or criminal proceedings under the
provisions of the PDPP Act can also be
proceeded with?--- The proceedings under the
PDPP Act are also distinct from matters which
are covered under the Revenue Code, and in
particular Section 67 thereof, which provides
procedure for eviction and recovery of damages
on account of unauthorized occupation and use
of land belonging to the St. under the
management of Gaon Sabha. The procedure
provided there-under is summary in nature and
is purely a civil remedy with no criminality
attached. On the other hand, any act which
constitutes a "mischief" within the meaning of
Section 2(a) of the PDPP Act, wherein the
definition of the word "mischief" has been
assigned the same meaning as in Section 425 of
Penal Code, and would relate to any act which
causes destruction of any property, or any
change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, or affects it injuriously, and the property
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is a "public property" as described under Section
2(b) of the PDPP Act, the same would constitute
a criminal offence under Section 3 and would be
visited
by
penal
consequences,
namely,
imprisonment and fine--- Criminal proceedings,
which have been initiated in the present case
pursuant to FIR lodged under the the PDPP Act,
thus cannot be held to be vitiated for the reason
that in respect of the allegations relating to
encroachment/damage to Gaon Sabha land,
only proceedings for eviction and recovery of
damages can be initiated under the provisions
of
the
Revenue
Code
and
no
criminal
proceedings for causing damage or destruction
of public property can be initiated under the
PDPP Act. (Para 31 & 33)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prabhakant & anr.Vs St. of U.P. & anr.passed
in the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.398 of
2023 vide order dated 13.07.2023

2. Munshi Lal & anr.Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
2020(8) ADJ 311

3. Devnath Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., AIR
Online 2021 ALL 2018,

4. Re: Destruction of Public and Private
Properties Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh & ors., AIR
Online 2007 SC 81

5. Kodungallur Film Society & anr.Vs U.O.I.&
ors., AIR Online 2018 SC 737

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
to quash the charge sheet dated 05.12.2022
as well as the cognizance/summoning order
dated
10.02.2023
passed
by
C.J.M.,
Farrukhabad
and
also
the
entire
proceedings of Case No.580 of 2023 (State
vs. Ramnarayan Pandey and Others),
arising out of Case Crime No.235 of 2022,
under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(1) of
the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, Police Station Rajepur,
District Farrukhabad pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.

3. The records of the case indicate
that the criminal proceedings were initiated
pursuant to an FIR dated 11.10.2022
lodged against the applicants, which was
registered as Case Crime No.0235 of 2022,
under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(1) of
the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, Police Station Rajepur,
District
Farrukhabad.
The
case
was
investigated and a charge sheet dated
05.12.2022
was
placed
whereupon
cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on
10.02.2023 and the case was registered as
Case No.580 of 2023.

4. The principal ground, which has
been sought to be urged to seek quashment
of the proceedings, is that the allegation in
the FIR being in regard to the making
encroachment, breaking of Pillar and
wiring and boundary over the Gram Sabha
land, the provisions of the PDPP Act could
not have been invoked to initiate criminal
proceedings. It is also submitted that the
Uttar
Pradesh
Revenue
Code,
2006
provides complete procedure for eviction of
an unauthorized occupation from Gram
Sabha land and in view of the same,
criminal proceedings which have been
initiated, are an abuse of process of court
and are liable to be quashed. In support of
his submission learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of Prabhakant and another Vs.
State of U.P. and another passed in the
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.398 of
2023 vide order dated 13.07.2023.
9 All. Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1175

5.

Controverting
the
aforesaid
submissions, learned AGA submitted that
the
proceedings
for
eviction
of
unauthorized occupation, as provided under
Section 67 of the Revenue Code, are of a
summary nature and there is no bar in
initiating of criminal proceedings under the
PDPP Act in case of damage to public
property which would include within its
purview Gram Sabha property also. It is
submitted that the scope of criminal
proceedings and the proceedings for
eviction under the Revenue Code are
entirely different and there is no bar in the
same being simultaneously proceeded with.

6. Based on the rival contentions the
question which falls for consideration is as
to whether in respect of allegations relating
to damage to Gram Sabha properties, only
proceedings for eviction under Section 67
of the Revenue Code can be initiated, or
criminal proceedings under the provisions
of the PDPP Act can also be proceeded
with.

7. The Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act (3 of 1984) was
enacted to provide for prevention of
damage to public properties and the matters
connected therewith. For ease of reference
the aforesaid Act i.e. The Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (3 of
1984) is being reproduced in its entirety:-

"1. Short title, extent and
commencement.- (1) This Act maybe
called the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984.

(2) It extends to the whole of India.

(3) It shall be deemed to have
come into force on the 28th day of January,
1984.

2.
Definitions.--In
this
Act,
unless the context otherwise requires,--

(a) "mischief" shall have the same
meaning as in section 425 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860);

(b) "public property" means any
property, whether immovable or movable
(including any machinery) which is owned
by, or in the possession of, or under the
control of--

(i) the Central Government; or

(ii) any State Government; or

(iii) any local authority; or

(iv) any corporation established
by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State
Act; or

(v) any company as defined in
section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1
of 1956); or

(vi) any institution, concern or
undertaking which the Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify in this behalf:

Provided
that
the
Central
Government
shall
not
specify
any
institution, concern or undertaking under
this sub-clause unless such institution,
concern or undertaking is financed wholly
or substantially by funds provided directly
or indirectly by the Central Government or
by one or more State Governments, or
partly by the Central Government and
partly by one or more State Governments.

3. Mischief causing damage to
public property. (1) Whoever commits
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mischief by doing any act in respect of any
public property, other than public property
of the nature referred to in sub-section (2),
shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to five years and
with fine.

(2) Whoever commits mischief
by doing any act in respect of any public
property being--

(a) any building, installation or
other property used in connection with the
production, distribution or supply of water,
light, power or energy;

(b) any oil installations;

(c) any sewage works;

(d) any mine or factory;

(e)
any
means
of
public
transportation or of tele-communications,
or any building, installation or other
property used in connection therewith, shall
be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than six
months, but which may extend to five years
and with fine:

Provided that the court may, for
reasons to be recorded in its judgment,
award a sentence of imprisonment for a
term of less than six months.

4. Mischief causing damage to
public property by fire or explosive
substance.-- Whoever commits an offence
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of
section 3 by fire or explosive substance
shall
be
punished
with
rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than one year, but which may extend to
ten years and with fine:

Provided that the court may, for
special reasons to be recorded in its
judgment,
award
a
sentence
of
imprisonment for a term of less than one
year.

5. Special provisions regarding
bail. --No person accused or convicted of
an offence punishable under section 3 or
section 4 shall, if in custody, be released on
bail or on his own bond unless the
prosecution has been given an opportunity
to oppose the application for such release.

6. Saving. The provisions of this
Act shall be in addition to, and not in
derogation of, the provisions of any other
law for the time being in force, and nothing
contained in this Act shall exempt any
person from any proceeding (whether by
way of investigation or otherwise) which
might apart from this Act, be instituted or
taken against him.

7. Repeal and saving.-- (1) The
Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Ordinance, 1984 (Ord. 3 of 1984), is
hereby repealed.

Notwithstanding
such
repeal,
anything done or any action taken under the
said Ordinance shall be deemed to have
been done or taken under the corresponding
provisions of this Act."

8. Section 3 of the PDPP Act provides
for
imposition
of
punishment
with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to five years and with fine, in respect of
mischief
causing
damage
to
public
property.

9. The word "mischief" has been
defined under Section 2 (a) as having the
same meaning as in the Section 425 of the
9 All. Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1177
Indian Penal Code, 18605. For ready
reference Section 425 of the Penal Code is
being extracted below:-

"425. Mischief.-- Whoever with
intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely
to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the
public or to any person, cause the
destruction of any property, or any such
change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value
or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits
"mischief"."

10. The expression "public property"
has been defined under Section 2(b) to
mean any property, whether immovable or
movable (including any machinery) which
is owned by, or in the possession of, or
under the control of--

(i) the Central Government; or

(ii) any State Government; or

(iii) any local authority; or

(iv) any corporation established
by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State
Act; or

(v) any company as defined in
Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1
of 1956); or

(vi) any institution, concern or
undertaking which the Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify in this behalf:

11. The expression "public property",
as defined under Section 2(b) of the PDPP
Act, would therefore include within its
ambit
any
property,
movable
or
immovable, owned by or in possession or
under the control of any local authority,
which would include a Gram Sabha. The
Gram Sabha land would therefore be
covered within the definition of the
expression "public property" under the Act
3 of 1984.

12. The term "mischief" has been
defined under Section 2(a) of the Act 3 of
1984 as having the same meaning as
defined under Section 425 of the Penal
Code. For ready reference, the term
"mischief" as defined under Section 425 of
the Penal Code, is as under:-

425. Mischief.-- Whoever with
intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely
to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the
public or to any person, cause the
destruction of any property, or any such
change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value
or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits
"mischief".

13. A conjoint reading of the
aforesaid provisions would go to show that
the Gram Sabha property would be covered
within the meaning of the term "public
property" and any damage to the same
would be within the ambit of the expression
"mischief
causing
damage
to
public
property"
which
would
constitute
a
punishable offence under Section 3 of the
PDPP Act.

14. The Revenue Code is an Act to
consolidate and amend the law relating to
land tenures and land revenue in the State
of Uttar Pradesh, and to provide for matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto.

15. Section 67 of the Revenue Code
which corresponds to Section 122B of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act, 1950 (now repealed), provides the
power to prevent damage, misappropriation
and
wrongful
occupation
of
Gram
Panchayat property. Section 67 of the
Revenue Code, reads as follows:

"67. Power to prevent damage,
misappropriation
and
wrongful
occupation of Gram Panchayat property.--
(1) Where any property entrusted or
deemed
to
be
entrusted
under
the
provisions of this Code to a Gram
Panchayat or other local authority is
damaged or misappropriated, or where any
Gram Panchayat or other authority is
entitled to take possession of any land
under the provisions of this Code and such
land is occupied otherwise than in
accordance with the said provisions, the
Bhumi
Prabandhak
Samiti
or
other
authority or the Lekhpal concerned, as the
case may be, shall inform the Assistant
Collector
concerned
in
the
manner
prescribed.

(2) Where from the information
received
under
sub-section
(1)
or
otherwise,
the
Assistant
Collector
is
satisfied that any property referred to in
sub-section (1) has been damaged or
misappropriated, or any person is in
occupation of any land referred to in that
sub-section
in
contravention
of
the
provisions of this Code, he shall issue
notice to the person concerned to show
cause why compensation for damage,
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
not exceeding the amount specified in the
notice be not recovered from him and why
he should not be evicted from such land.

(3) If the person to whom a notice
has been issued under sub-section (2) fails
to show cause within the time specified in
the notice or within such extended time as
the Assistant Collector may allow in this
behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be
insufficient, the Assistant Collector may
direct that such person shall be evicted
from the land, and may, for that purpose,
use or cause to be used such force as may
be necessary, and may direct that the
amount of compensation for damage or
misappropriation of the property or for
wrongful occupation, as the case may be,
be recovered from such person as arrears
of land revenue.

(4) If the Assistant Collector is of
opinion that the person showing cause is
not guilty of causing the damage or
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
referred to in the notice under sub-section
(2), he shall discharge the notice.

(5) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the Assistant Collector under Subsection (3) or Sub-Section (4), may within
thirty days from the date of such order,
prefer an appeal to the Collector.

(6)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other provisions of this
Code, and subject to the provisions of this
section every order of the Sub-Divisional
Officer under this section shall, subject to
the provisions of sub-section (5) be final.

(7) The procedure to be followed
in any action taken under this section shall
be such as may be prescribed.

Explanation. - For the purposes
of this section, the word "land" shall
include the trees and building standing
thereon."

16. The procedure to be followed in
respect of any action to be taken under the
aforesaid section is described under Rules
9 All. Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1179
66 and 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code Rules, 20166. Rules 66 and 67 read
as follows:-

"R.66. Information to Assistant
Collector (Section 67).-- The information
to Assistant Collector required by Section
67(1) shall be submitted by the Chairman
or any member or the Secretary of the Land
Management Committee, or any officer of
the Local Authority concerned in R.C.
Form-19.

R.67.
Further
inquiry
by
Assistant Collector (Section 67).-- (1) On
receipt of the information under Rule 66, or
on
facts
otherwise
coming
to
his
knowledge, the Assistant Collector may
make such inquiry as he deems proper and
may obtain further information regarding
the following points --

(a) full description of damage or
misappropriation caused or the wrongful
occupation made with details of village,
plot number, area, boundary, property
damaged or misappropriated and market
value thereof;

(b) full address along with
parentage of the person responsible for
such damage, misappropriation or wrongful
occupation;

(c)
period
of
wrongful
occupation, damage or misappropriation
and class of soil of the plots involved;

(d) value of the property damaged
or misappropriated calculated at the circle
rate fixed by the Collector and the amount
sought to be recovered as damages.

(2) The Assistant Collector shall
thereafter proceed to take action under
section 67(2) and for that purpose issue a
notice to the person concerned in R.C.
Form-20 to show cause as to why
compensation
for
damage,
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
not exceeding the amount specified in the
notice be not recovered from him and why
he should not be evicted from such land.

(3) If the notice referred to in
section 67(2) remains uncomplied with or
if the cause shown by the person concerned
is found to be insufficient, the Assistant
Collector may direct by order that --

(a) such person be evicted by
using such force as may be necessary; or

(b) the amount of compensation
for damage or wrongful occupation ordered
by the Assistant Collector, if not paid in
specified time, may be recovered as arrears
of land revenue, including the amount of
expenses referred to in sub-rule (3).

(4) The amount of damages
sought to be recovered and the expenses of
execution of the order shall be specified in
such notice, which shall be determined in
the following manner:-

(a) In the case of damage or
misappropriation, the amount of damages shall
be assessed at the prevailing market rate.

(b) In the case of unauthorized
occupation of any land, the amount of
damages shall be the amount equal to the
five percent of the market value of the land
calculated at the circle rate fixed by the
Collector for each year of unauthorized
occupation.

(c) The expenses of execution of
the order shall be assessed on the basis of
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one day's pay and allowances payable to
the staff deputed.

(5) If the person wrongfully
occupying the land has done cultivation
therein, he may be allowed to retain
possession thereof until he has harvested
the crops subject to the payment by him of
the amount equal to the five percent of the
market value of the land calculated as per
the circle rate which shall be credited to the
Consolidated Gaon Fund or the Fund of the
local authority other than the Gram
Panchayat as the case may be. If the person
concerned does not make the payment of
the aforesaid amount within the period
specified in the notice in R.C. Form-20, the
possession of the land shall be delivered to
the Land Management Committee or the
local authority, as the case may be, together
with the crop:

Provided that where such person
again wrongfully occupies the same land or
any other land within the jurisdiction of the
Gram Panchayat or the local authority as
the case may be, he shall be evicted
therefrom forthwith and possession of the
land vacant or together with the crop
thereon shall be delivered to the Land
Management Committee or the local
authority as the case may be.

(6) The Assistant Collector shall
make an endeavour to conclude the
proceeding under section 67 of the Code
within the period of ninety days from the
date of issuance of the show cause notice
and if the proceeding is not concluded
within such period the reasons for the same
shall be recorded.

(7) Nothing in sub-rule (5) shall
debar the Land Management Committee or
the local authority as the case may be from
prosecuting the person who encroaches
upon the same land second time in spite of
having been evicted under the Code or the
rules, under section 447 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

(8) There shall be maintained in
the office of each Collector a register in
R.C. Form-21 showing details of the
amount ordered to be realized on account
of damages and compensation awarded in
proceedings under section 67.

(9) A similar register shall also be
maintained by each tahsildar showing
realization of damages and compensation
awarded in such proceeding. The entries
made in the register maintained at tahsil
shall be compared with the register
maintained by the Collector to ensure
accuracy of the entries made therein.

(10) A progress report showing
realization of damages and compensation
awarded in proceedings under section 67
shall be sent to Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Lucknow by the fifteenth day of April and
October every year. The Board after
consolidating the report so received from
the
districts
shall
send
it
to
the
Government.

(11) Nothing in Rules 66 and 67
shall debar any person from establishment
of his right, title or interest in a court of
competent jurisdiction in accordance with
the law for the time being in force in
respect of any matter for which any order
has been made under Section 67 of the
Code."

17. The provisions contained under
Section 67 of the Revenue Code and the
Rules 66 and 67 of the Rules, 2016,
provide
a
summary
procedure
for
proceeding
in
respect
of
damage,
9 All. Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1181
misappropriation and wrongful occupation
of Gram Panchayat properties and includes
the powers to prevent such damage,
misappropriation or wrongful occupation.
The procedure prescribed includes giving
information to the Assistant Collector,
whereupon inquiry is to be made and after
issuance of notice to the person concerned,
a direction for eviction and recovery of
compensation
for
damage
or
misappropriation
of
the
property
or
wrongful occupation may be made. The
order to be passed in this regard is subject
to a statutory appeal, which may be
preferred to the Collector.

18. The Revenue Code also contains
provisions for institution of regular suits for
declaration of rights. Section 145 pertains
to declaratory suits by Gram Panchayat and
it provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, the Gram Panchayat may
institute a suit against any person claiming
to be entitled to any right in any land for
the declaration of the right of such person
in such land, then the court may, in its
discretion, make a declaration of right of
such person, and the Gram Panchayat need
not in such suit ask for any further relief.

19. The PDPP Act, on the other hand,
has been enacted to curb acts of vandalism
and damage to public property, and in
terms thereof any act of mischief i.e.
causing destruction of any property, or any
change in any property or in the situation
thereof which destroys or diminishes its
value or utility, or affects it injuriously,
would constitute a punishable offence, as
per Section 3 thereof.

20. Section 5 of the PDPP Act
contains special provisions regarding bail
and it mandates that no person accused or
convicted of an offence punishable under
Section 3 or Section 4 shall, if in custody,
be released on bail or on his own bond
unless the prosecution has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for
such release.

21. Section 6 is a saving clause and in
terms thereof the provisions of this Act
shall be in addition to, and not in
derogation of, the provisions of any other
law for the time being in force, and nothing
contained in the Act shall exempt any
person from any proceeding (whether by
way of investigation or otherwise) which
might apart from this Act, be instituted or
taken against him.

22. The aforestated provisions are
indicative of the object and purpose of the
PDPP Act, which is an enactment to curb
acts of vandalism and damage to public
property and to provide punishment in
respect thereof.

23. The scope of proceedings under
the PDPP Act is, therefore entirely different
from that of proceedings of eviction, which
might be initiated in respect of wrongful
occupation of Gram Panchayat properties
under Section 67 of the Revenue Code. The
saving clause under Section 6 of the PDPP
Act makes it clear that the provisions of the
Act are in addition to, and not in derogation
of, the provisions of any other law for the
time
being
in
force,
and
that
the
proceedings under any other enactment
may also be instituted or taken without
there being any bar in respect of the same.

24. In the instant case, criminal
proceedings have been initiated pursuant to
lodging of an FIR by the Gram Pradhan of
the village containing allegations that the
accused applicant had damaged the pillar
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and wiring and boundary over the Goan
Sabha land, which is recorded in the
revenue records. As per the FIR version,
the land in question bearing Gata No.298,
area 0.470 hectares is recorded as a Naveen
Parti of the land of Gaon Sabha and it is
stated that the accused applicants have
damaged the pillar etc. over the Gram
Sabha land thereby causing damage to
public property and in view thereof
criminal proceedings under Section 3/4 of
the PDPP Act were being initiated against
him for the said act.

25. Pursuant to FIR the case was
investigated and the material collected
during
the
course
of
investigation
supported
the
FIR
allegations
and
accordingly
a
charge
sheet
dated
14.05.2015
was
submitted
whereupon
cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on
06.04.2016 and a criminal case was
instituted.

26. In Munshi Lal and Another Vs.
State of U.P. and Another, 2020(8) ADJ
311, after noticing the provisions of the
PDPP Act, has taken the view that as far as
criminal
proceedings
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. In so far as the
observation made in the decision that the
Act covers the specific area relating to any
act of vandalism including the destruction
or damage during any riots or public
demonstration in the name of agitations,
bandhs, hartals and the like, is concerned,
reference may be had to a recent decision
by a Division Bench of this Court in
Devnath Yadav vs. State of U.P. and three
Others, AIR Online 2021 ALL 2018,
which was a case where an FIR under
Section 2/3/5 of the PDPP Act, in respect
of encroachment over the Gaon Sabha land,
had been sought to be challenged. The
Division Bench upon considering the legal
position held that the judgment in the case
of
Munshi
Lal
and
Another
was
distinguishable and made the following
observations :-

"Coming to the judgement in the
case of Munshi Lal (supra), we find that the
learned Single Judge, proceeded on the
premise that Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 was enacted to
curb vandalism and damage to pubic
property. The first sentence of its Statement
of Objects and Reasons reads as follows-

"With a view to curb acts of
vandalism and damage to public property,
including destruction and damage caused
during riots and public commotion, a need
was felt to strengthen the law to enable the
authorities to deal effectively with cases of
damage to public property."

The use of the word "including"
has been given a restrictive interpretation
in the judgment cited. We are of the opinion
that the said word is illustrative rather that
bringing also within its ambit, "destruction
and damage caused during riots and public
commotion" as stated in the Statement of
Objects and Reasons. The use of word
"including" therefore, cannot be read to
mean that the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act can be invoked only
where damage to public property is
occasioned by vandalism, riots or public
commotion.

In our considered opinion, the
learned Single Judge has taken a narrow
9 All. Ramnarayan Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1183
view of Section 3(1) of the Act and has
primarily relied upon Sections 3(2) of the
Act as also upon Section 4 of the Act for
arriving at the final conclusion, in the
judgement cited.

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. Also, the judgement in the case of
Munshi Lal is distinguishable on facts."

27. It may be relevant to note that in
so far as damage to public or private
properties by acts of violence during
hartals, bandhs, riots, public commotion
and protests, certain observations were
made by the Supreme Court in Re:
Destruction
of
Public
and
Private
Properties vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
and Others, AIR Online 2007 SC 81, and
taking a serious note of various instances
where there was large scale destruction of
public and private properties in the name of
agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like and
also considering certain suggestions given
by the committees appointed by the Court,
recommended amendment to the PDPP
Act, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and
other criminal laws, statutes; and also set
out guidelines to assess damages to
property in the absence of a statutory
framework.

28. The aforementioned issues were
subsequently taken up in the case of
Kodungallur Film Society and Another vs.
Union of India and Others, AIR Online
2018 SC 737, and taking note of the
recommendations/directions
in
Re:
Destruction
of
Public
and
Private
Properties
(supra),
certain
further
recommendations/directions were made.

29. The subject matter relating to acts
of violence at public places, to control its
persistence and escalation, and to provides
for recovery of damage to public or private
property during hartals, bands, riots, public
commotion and protests in respect of
property
and
constitution
of
claims
tribunals to investigate and determine the
damages
caused
and
to
award
compensation in relation thereto have been
provided for under the aforementioned U.P.
Act No.11 of 2020.

30. The scope and the subject matter
of the PDPP Act is different from the
subject matter covered under the Act, 2020,
which deals with all acts of violence at
public places and to provide for measures
to control its persistence and escalation and
also provides for recovery of damage by
constitution of claims tribunals.

31. The proceedings under the PDPP
Act are also distinct from matters which are
covered under the Revenue Code, and in
particular
Section
67
thereof,
which
provides
procedure
for
eviction
and
recovery of damages on account of
unauthorized occupation and use of land
belonging
to
the
State
under
the
management
of
Gaon
Sabha.
The
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedure provided there-under is summary
in nature and is purely a civil remedy with
no criminality attached. On the other hand,
any act which constitutes a "mischief"
within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the
PDPP Act, wherein the definition of the
word "mischief" has been assigned the
same meaning as in Section 425 of Penal
Code, and would relate to any act which
causes destruction of any property, or any
change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value
or utility, or affects it injuriously, and the
property is a "public property" as described
under Section 2(b) of the PDPP Act, the
same would constitute a criminal offence
under Section 3 and would be visited by
penal consequences, namely, imprisonment
and fine.

32. The provisions under the Revenue
Code, the Act, 2020 and the PDPP Act
would, therefore be seen to operate in
different fields with there being no bar in
respect of the institution of proceedings
under the aforesaid enactments separately
or simultaneously in respect of matters
covered thereunder.

33. The criminal proceedings, which
have been initiated in the present case
pursuant
to
FIR
lodged
under
the
provisions of the PDPP Act, thus cannot be
held to be vitiated for the reason that in
respect of the allegations relating to
encroachment/damage to Gaon Sabha land,
only proceedings for eviction and recovery
of damages can be initiated under the
provisions of the Revenue Code and no
criminal proceedings for causing damage or
destruction of public property can be
initiated under the PDPP Act.

34. No other ground was urged,
therefore, no case is made out for invoking
the inherent power of the Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C..

35. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for
the prayer made is liable to be dismissed.

36. Hence, the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 11.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 6864 of 2023

Smt. Sangeeta Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Nadeem Murtaza, Amitav Singh, Umang
Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482---Applicant assailed the
impugned orders by which, the charges were
framed against the applicant under sections 323
& 506 of I.P.C. and Section 10 of the POCSO
Act--- Under section 35(2) of the Act, there is a
provision that the Special Court dealing with the
matters of the offences under the POCSO Act,
shall complete the trial, as far as possible,
within a period of one year, from the date of
taking
cognizance
of
the
offence---
The
compliance of the provision of Section 207 of
the Cr.P.C. is done by the trial court and
thereafter, the matter was posted for after
lunch session, wherein the applicant alongwith
her counsel appeared and the counsel for the
applicant was heard--- Neither any application
for adjournment of the case nor any objection