Dilip Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 05, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917478

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/917478
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Amar Saran; Arvind Kumar Tripathi, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 05, 2011
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5805 of 2011
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[R.V. Raveendran; A. K. Patnaik] Indian Penal Code Section 452 - House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- After investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana. After further investigation, the Superintendent of Pol...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, - Section 3 or 4; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 425

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dilip Kumar

Advocate H.N. Pandey,R.R. Shukla

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate Govt. Advocate

Legal References

Acts: Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, - Section 3 or 4; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 425

Excerpt

.....section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....certainly by making construction on public land, which is not permissible, its utility will be diminished and the property will be injuriously affected. 3. the second error in the counsel's argument is that he has mixed up two provisions as section 3 (2), which provides higher punishment i.e. punishment up to 5 years and fine but a minimum punishment of 6 months, speaks of committing mischief by doing any act in respect of a particular class of 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, 4. it is clarified that under section 2 (b) of the public property act, 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 etc.5. the present property was clearly in possession of the government. the wide definition would therefore include all kinds of immovable property and not only the specific kind of property mentioned in section 3 (2) of the public property act. 6. in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the f.i.r. does not disclose any cognizable offence. there is no merit in this petition.7. it is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that the petitioner was trying to get construction made on public land. His principal contention was that by getting construction made on public land, no offence under section 3 or 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, (hereinafter Public Property Act), is disclosed. We are not in agreement with this submission. Section 3 consists of two parts. The first part 3 (1) refers to any mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), which shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. Mischief has been defined in section 2 (a) of the Public Property Act. The definition of "mischief" is to have the same meaning as given under section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Section 425 of Indian Penal Code defines mischief thus:

"Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes 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". Thus this section clearly speaks of causing any change in property or to destroy or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief". Thus, on this broad definition, certainly by making construction on public land, which is not permissible, its utility will be diminished and the property will be injuriously affected.

3. The second error in the counsel's argument is that he has mixed up two provisions as section 3 (2), which provides higher punishment i.e. punishment up to 5 years and fine but a minimum punishment of 6 months, speaks of committing mischief by doing any act in respect of a particular class of 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;

(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,

4. It is clarified that under section 2 (b) of the Public Property Act, 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 etc.

5. The present property was clearly in possession of the Government. The wide definition would therefore include all kinds of immovable property and not only the specific kind of property mentioned in section 3 (2) of the Public Property Act.

6. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. does not disclose any cognizable offence. There is no merit in this petition.

7. It is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2011 Same Parties Dilip Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Amar Saran; Arvind Kumar Tripathi, JJ. Acts & Sections Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, - Section 3 or 4...

Criminal