Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. -Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984- In this case, HC quashed the proceedings on the ground that the Gram Pradhan was not the competent authority to lodge an FIR- Allowing appeal, SC observed: There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant or any other person who has allegedly committed an offence -Anyone can set out or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary- There is no specific provision in the 1984 Act which limits the eligibility of the person making the complaint-None of the Acts referred to in the charge sheet indicate anything contrary to the above principle.
Case Info
Case Details
- Case name: Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Neutral citation: Not provided in the order.
- Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Judgment date: 18th November, 2025
- Appeal/SLP numbers: Criminal Appeal No. 4920 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 5919/2025)
- Impugned order: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 24-09-2024, in CRLA No. 2052/2024(“Naushad and 3 Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr.”)
Caselaws and Citations
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 64 — cited for the principle that any person can set criminal law in motion unless barred by statute.
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — general principle on locus to initiate criminal proceedings.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 147, 323, 504, 506.
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va).
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: Sections 3/4.
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006: Sections 67 and 136 — noted as civil provisions, not limiting FIR by Gram Pradhan in criminal matters.