# Shankar Nath Pnadey & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 622
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-18
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 7324 of 2023
- **Bench:** Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shankar-nath-pnadey-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51836
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

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
4 All. Shankar Nath Pnadey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
623
Gaon Sabha land, including demarcation and
eviction by revenue authorities, rendering
criminal prosecution under the PDPP Act
inappropriate. (Paras 4, 12, 14, 17)

D. Investigation and Charge-Sheet -
Procedural Irregularities - The Investigating
Officer submitted a charge-sheet within 20 days
of the FIR without awaiting the Lekhpal's report
or conducting proper demarcation - Held, the
hasty investigation, lacking Statements from
villagers
or
independent
witnesses,
was
arbitrary and potentially mala fide, influenced by
enmity with the Gaon Pradhan. (Paras 4, 8, 18)

E. Absence of Criminality - Quashing
Justified - The applicants, senior citizens,
removed the fencing voluntarily, and no damage
to public property was established - Held, in the
absence of criminal intent or vandalism as
required under the PDPP Act, and given the
resolution of the encroachment, continuing the
prosecution
was
an
abuse
of
process,
warranting quashing of the summoning order
and proceedings. (Paras 6, 8, 18, 20)

Application Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

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
4 All. Shankar Nath Pnadey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
623
Gaon Sabha land, including demarcation and
eviction by revenue authorities, rendering
criminal prosecution under the PDPP Act
inappropriate. (Paras 4, 12, 14, 17)

D. Investigation and Charge-Sheet -
Procedural Irregularities - The Investigating
Officer submitted a charge-sheet within 20 days
of the FIR without awaiting the Lekhpal's report
or conducting proper demarcation - Held, the
hasty investigation, lacking Statements from
villagers
or
independent
witnesses,
was
arbitrary and potentially mala fide, influenced by
enmity with the Gaon Pradhan. (Paras 4, 8, 18)

E. Absence of Criminality - Quashing
Justified - The applicants, senior citizens,
removed the fencing voluntarily, and no damage
to public property was established - Held, in the
absence of criminal intent or vandalism as
required under the PDPP Act, and given the
resolution of the encroachment, continuing the
prosecution
was
an
abuse
of
process,
warranting quashing of the summoning order
and proceedings. (Paras 6, 8, 18, 20)

Application Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. In Re. Destruction of Public and Private
Properties Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 5
SCC 212

2. Kodungallur Film Society Vs U.O.I., (2018) 10
SCC 713

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1) Heard learned counsel for the
applicant as well as the learned Additional
Government Advocate.

(2) The present application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the
applicants, Shankar Nath Pandey and
Shambhu Nath Pandey, seeking to quash
the summoning order dated 15.03.2021
passed
by
the
Judicial
Magistrate-I,
Faizabad in Criminal Case No.137 of 2021
: State Vs. Shankar Nath Pandey & others
arising out of Case Crime No. 335 of 2019,
under Section 3 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984,
Police Station Khandasa, District Ayodhya
and also to quash the entire proceedings
initiated against the applicants.

(3) The records of the case indicate
that criminal proceedings were initiated
pursuant to an FIR dated 01.09.2019
lodged against the applicants and one
Kaushal Kishore, which was registered as
Case Crime No.335 of 2019, under Section
3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to
as PDPP Act), Police Station Khandasa,
District
Ayodhya.
The
case
was
investigated and a charge sheet dated
21.09.2019 was submitted, whereupon
cognizance was taken by the Judicial
Magistrate-I, Faizabad and on 15.03.2021,
an order for summoning the applicants was
passed. It is this order, which has been
challenged before this Court in the instant
application.

(4) It is submitted by the learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
applicants are recorded co-tenure holder of
Gata Nos.2727 adjacent to Gata No.2722
and 2729 (chak road of Gaon Sabha)
situated
in
Village
Kotiya,
Pargana
Khandasa Tehsil Milkipur. These Gatas
belonging to the applicants are connected
with the said chak road. The applicants for
the purpose of safety of their crops, which
were cultivated on the aforesaid gatas from
the wild animals, had made fencing with
the barbed wire (sparked wire), however,
on raising objection by the Lekhpal on the
said fencing on inspection, the applicants
have removed the said fencing. In this
regard, Lekhpal has also submitted its
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
report dated 30.10.2019 to the SubDivisional Officer to the effect that the
applicants themselves have removed the
said encroachment and at present, there is
no encroachment on the land in question of
the
Gaon
Sabha.
However,
the
Investigating Officer, in the meantime, in a
hasty manner, has submitted a charge-sheet
dated 21.09.2019 under Section 3 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984 against the applicants i.e. within
20 days from the date of lodging the F.I.R.
without taking any statement of any of the
villagers nor any independent witness and
as such the whole exercise made by the
Investigating Officer has been done under
the influence of the then Gaon Pradhan,
who has enmity with the applicants.

(5)

Learned
Counsel
for
the
applicants
has,
thus,
submitted
that
cognizance taken in the matter is illegal and
without application of judicial mind. The
disputed plot/land, for which encroachment
is said to have been made, is related to
Gaon Sabha land (chak road) for which
specific provisions have been provided
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act and
Revenue Code to remove such type of
encroachment. It is further submitted that
since there is specific provisions under
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act/Revenue Code for
eviction/removal
of
encroachment/
unauthorized occupation of plot/land in
question, provisions of Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act are not
applicable in the matter.

(6) Referring to provisions of
Sections 3 of the Prevention of Damages to
Public Property Act, learned counsel for the
applicants submitted that continuation of
prosecution against applicants in this matter
is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
According to the learned Counsel, the
applicants are senior citizens aged about
more than 70 years and as no offence under
Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of
Public Property Act, 1984 as alleged in the
F.I.R.,
charge-sheet
as
well
as
in
summoning order against the applicants is
made out, hence the impugned summoning
order as well as entire proceedings initiated
against the applicants are liable to be
quashed.

(7) On the other hand, referring to
provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,
learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for State submitted that F.I.R. in
the
matter
was
lodged
against
the
applicants taking recourse to the provisions
of Sections 3 of the Prevention of Damages
to Public Property Act, which is equally
applicable in the present matter. There is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order. It is further submitted that F.I.R for
such type of criminal act can be lodged
under the provisions of Prevention of
Damages
to
Public
Property
Act
irrespective of the fact that there is specific
provisions under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act /
Revenue Code for eviction/removal of
encroachment/unauthorized
occupation
from the plot/land in question.

(8) Having regard to the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for the
parties and going through the record
available before this Court, this Court finds
that the allegations made in the F.I.R.
against the applicants that they are in
wrongful occupation of the land in dispute
belonging to the Goan Sabha, cannot come
within the realm of mischief or wrongful
occupation, till such time its actual physical
measurement is not conducted by the
authority concerned. Site plan prepared by
the Investigating officer, which has been
4 All. Shankar Nath Pnadey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
625
placed before this Court by the applicants
by means of the supplementary affidavit, is
only a narration of the fact that the
applicants are conducting their farming and
cultivating over their land and only in order
to safeguard their crops from the wild
animals, they have made fencing with the
barbed wire (sparked wire), but the
Investigating Officer cannot decide it
unless and until actual demarcation is being
done by the competent revenue authority
after holding the exercise of measurement
and establishing its identity. In absence of
this vital link, it cannot be said with
certainty
that
charge-sheeted
accused
persons including the applicants have
swelled their limits and encroached upon
the land of the Gaon Sabha, particularly the
fact that on the pointing out of the Lekhpal,
the applicants themselves have removed the
encroachment as is evident from the report
of the Lekhpal dated 30.10.2019 annexed
as Annexure No. 4 to the instant
application.

(9) At this juncture, it would be apt to
mention that the underline object and idea
of enacting the Prevention of Damages to
Public Property Act, 1984 is to curb acts of
vandalism and damage to public property
including destruction and damage caused
during riots and public commotion. The
"public property" as defined under Section
2(b) of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 means any property,
whether immovable or movable (including
any machinery) which is owned by or in
possession of or under the control of the
Central or State Government or any local
authority or any Corporation or any
institution established by the Central,
Provincial or State Act or its undertaking.
Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984
provides
that
anyone
who
commits
mischief by doing any act in respect of any
'public property' including the nature
referred in subsection (2) in the said section
shall be punished with imprisonment and a
fine depending upon the nature of the
property as per sub-section (1) and subsection (2) of Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act,
1984. Thus, the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is a
Special Act enacted to punish for the
offence committed under Sections 3 and 4
of the said Act by doing 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.
The
"Mischief" has been defined under Section
2(a) of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 having the
same meaning as in Section 425 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Section 6
is the saving clause which says that the Act,
1984 covers the offence committed under it
and the provisions of it are in addition to
any other law which provides for any
proceeding
(whether
by
way
of
investigation or otherwise) which may be
instituted or taken against the offender,
apart from this Act. Special provisions with
regard to disposal of a prayer for bail made
by a person accused or commission of
offence under the Act, 1984 has been
provided under Section 5 of the P.D.P.P.
Act, 1984. The provisions oblige a person
found guilty of commission of offence to
pay the damage or loss caused to the public
property. Thus, this Act covers the specific
area of damage or loss or destruction of
public property and recovery of such
damages from the person(s) who is/are
found guilty of such damage during the
course of any public demonstration in the
name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the
like.

(10) In Re. Destruction of Public
and Private Properties, In Re vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and others, 2009 (5)
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SCC 212, taking a serious note of various
instances where there was a large scale
destruction of public and private properties
in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals
and the like, suo motu proceedings had
been initiated by the Apex Court and two
Committees
were
appointed
to
give
suggestions on strengthening of the legal
provisions of P.D.P.P. Act to effectively
deal
with
such
instances.
The
recommendation of two Committees were
considered and it was observed that the
suggestions were extremely important and
they constitute sufficient guidelines which
need to be adopted. It was left open to the
appropriate authorities to take effective
steps for their implementation.

(11) In Kodungallur Film Society
and another vs. Union of India and
others, 2018 (10) SCC 713, the relief was
sought to issue a mandamus to the
appropriate authorities to strictly follow
and implement the guidelines formulated
by the Apex Court in Re: Destruction of
Public & Private Properties (supra), with
regard to measures to be taken to prevent
destruction of public and private properties
in mass protests and demonstrations and
also regarding the modalities of fixing
liability and recovering compensation for
damages caused to public and private
properties during such demonstration and
protests. It was observed in Kodungallur
Film
Society
(Supra)
that
the
recommendations of the Committee noted
in the said judgment traversed the length
and breadth of the issue at hand and, if
implemented in their entirely, would go a
long way in removing the bane of violence
caused against persons and property. As far
as
implementation
of
the
said
recommendations, the Union had advised
the States to follow the same in its letter
and spirit. Issuing directions to implement
recommendations made by the Apex Court
in both the above decisions. Direction was
issued in Kodungallur Film Society
(supra) to both the Central and the State
Government to do the same at the earliest.
Accordingly, the State of Uttar Pradesh too
has notified "Uttar Pradesh Recovery of
Damages to Public and Private Property
Rules, 2020" with a view to provide for
recovery of damages to public and private
property during hartal, bundh, riots, public
commotion, protests etc. in regard to
property and imposition of fine. The said
Rules provides for constitution of the
claims tribunal to investigate the damages
caused and to award compensation related
thereto.

(12) Learned Counsel for the
applicants has also drawn attention of the
Court to the provisions of Section 67 of the
U.P. Revenue Code which speaks about the
power
to
prevent
damages,
misappropriation and wrongful occupation
of Gram Panchayat property:-

"(i)
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.

(ii) Where from the information
received under sub-section (i) or otherwise,
the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any
4 All. Shankar Nath Pnadey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
627
property referred to in sub-section (i) 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.

(iii) If the person to whom a notice
has been issued under sub-section (ii) 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.

(iv) 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
(ii), he shall discharge the notice.

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

(vi)
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.

(vii)
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."

(13) Rule 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2016 reveals that it is incumbent
upon the Assistant Collector to make an
inquiry as he deems proper and obtain
further information regarding the following
issues :-

"(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."

(14) Thus, from the above, it is crystal
clear that as per the U.P. Revenue Code, it
is the Assistant Collector of the area who is
the authority concerned to act a pivotal role
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in demarcation and holding and declaring
the land in dispute is encroached by the
applicants. However, the Investigating
Officer of criminal cases is not even
remotely
connected
to
conduct
this
exercise. The entire procedure has been laid
down in Section 67 (2) of the U.P. Revenue
Code that only after getting a reply from
the alleged encroacher, the Assistant
Commissioner/Sub Divisional Officer has
to pass an order giving reasons for not
exceeding the explanation, if so offered by
the person concerned. The eviction from
the land in dispute can only be recorded
after disposal of the explanation offered by
the person concerned keeping in line with
the cardinal principle of natural justice by
passing a well reasoned and speaking order
while disposing of the said explanation.
The Act is itself contained the amount of
compensation
of
damage
or
misappropriation of the property or for
wrongful occupation, as the case may be,
may be recovered from such person as
arrears of land revenue. Section 210 of the
Revenue Code, 2006 confers supervisory
power on the Board or the Commissioner to
call for the record of any proceeding
decided by the subordinate revenue court in
which no appeal lies for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the legality
or propriety of any order passed in such
suit or proceeding.

(15) A careful reading of the
provisions of the Revenue Code, 2006,
thus, makes it clear that the proceeding for
causing damage to the public property can
be undertaken against any person who is in
wrongful occupation of the same or causes
damage or misappropriations to the said
property. The nature of eviction proceeding
under Section 67 of the Revenue Code,
2006, is, however, summary in nature. The
rights of the parties claimed, if gives rise to
a dispute requiring adjudication on the
questions of fact, a suit for declaration has
to be instituted against such person. The
Gram Sabha may institute a suit under
Section 145 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 for declaration of its right or to seek
any further relief. In case of institution of
such a suit, a temporary injunction may be
granted by the Court concerned to prevent
wastage, damage or alienation of the suit
property. The Revenue Code, 2006 is a
Special enactment providing for the law
relating to the 'land' defined under Section
4(14) of the Code.

(16) 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.

(17) Thus, taking into account the
gravity of offence and its nature in which
there is no criminality as such, the apt
remedy would be to proceed against the
erring so called encroacher under Section
67 of the U.P. Revenue Code and get the
land in dispute demarcated. It is the case
exclusively falls within the domain of
concerned revenue authority to impose the
fine, if any, after taking the whole exercise
as per the provisions of law contained
under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue
Code.

(18) In the instant case, the applicants
have specifically pleaded before this Court
in this application under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
that
they
have
moved
an
application duly supported by an affidavit
regarding the alleged encroachment before
the Sub-Divisional Officer on 09.09.2019
4 All. Amardeep Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
629
i.e. prior to filing the charge-sheet dated
21.09.2019, upon which the Sub-Divisional
Officer directed the area Lekhpal to
submit its report. In compliance thereof,
the Area Lekhpal had visited the site and
prepared its report dated 30.10.2019 and
submitted the same before the SubDivisional Officer. As per the said report
dated
30.10.2019,
the
applicants
themselves
have
removed
the
encroachment and now there is no
encroachment over the chak road of the
Gaon Sabha. Though the action of the
revenue authorities on the application of
the applicants appears to have in the
knowledge of the Investigating Officer,
however, without waiting for the outcome
of the decision of the revenue authorities,
the Investigating Officer had proceeded
with the investigation and submitted
charge-sheet dated 21.09.2019 i.e. within
20 days of lodging of the F.I.R. and
before submission of the report of the
Lekhpal dated 30.10.2019, which smacks
the action of the Investigating Officer
arbitrary and mala fide.

(19) Thus, taking note of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
abovementioned cases and also keeping
in view the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court has
no hesitation to allow this application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the
impugned summoning/cognizance orders
as well as proceedings challenged therein.

(20) Accordingly, the impugned
summoning order dated 15.03.2021 as
well as entire criminal proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 137 of 2021 : State
Vs. Shankar Nath Pandey and others,
arising out of Case Crime No.335 of
2019, under Section 3 of Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act, Police
Station Khandasa, District Ayodhya,
pending
in
the
Court
of
Judicial
Magistrate-I,
Faizabad
are
hereby
quashed.

(21) As the Area Lekhpal vide report
dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure No. 4), which
is not disputed by the State Counsel, itself
reported that now there is no encroachment
of the land of the Goan Sabha as alleged in
the F.I.R., therefore, no fruitful purpose
would be served in remitting the matter to
the
concerned
authority
for
fresh
consideration.

(22) The instant application under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
is,
accordingly,
allowed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 629
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 8732 of 2024

Amardeep Sonkar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Shivam Agarwal, Ms. Tanu Shree

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005- Section 12 - Quashing of Summoning
Order Dismissed - The applicant sought to
quash the summoning order and proceedings
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) -