Complaint under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) held that a complaint for offences under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 can be initiated by any person, as the Act imposes no restrictions on who may set the criminal law in motion. 

What was the Background of Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• A Gram Pradhan (village head) had filed a complaint against the accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code read with the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 
• The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and summoned the accused to face trial. 
• The accused challenged the Magistrate's order before the Allahabad High Court. 
• The Allahabad High Court set aside the Magistrate's order, quashing the summoning of the accused. 
• The High Court held that only a Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, could initiate action against damage made to public property. 
• Since the Gram Pradhan was not deemed a competent authority under the U.P. Revenue Code, the High Court held the complaint to be not maintainable. 
• The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court emphasized the well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that "anyone can set out or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary." 
• The Court noted that there is no specific provision in the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 which limits the eligibility of the person making the complaint. 
• The Court distinguished between civil and criminal proceedings, holding that the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, being civil in nature, operate in a completely different context relating to the assessment of damages or the ejectment of trespassers. 
• The Court held that the High Court manifestly erred in law by holding that since the Gram Pradhan was not the competent authority to lodge an FIR, the action of the Special Judge in taking cognizance and summoning the accused was bad in law. 
• The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's approach of applying civil law provisions to restrict the initiation of criminal proceedings. 
• The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order and restored the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and summoning the accused. 
• The appeal was allowed, affirming that criminal proceedings under the 1984 Act can be initiated by any person. 

What is the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984? 

Key Details: 

• Full Title: The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 
• Act Number: Act No. 3 of 1984 
• Date of Enactment: March 16, 1984 
• Deemed Commencement: January 28, 1984 
• Territorial Extent: Extends to the whole of India 

Definitions: 

• Mischief: Has the same meaning as defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• Public Property: Includes immovable or movable property (including machinery) owned by, possessed by, or under the control of: 

Central Government 

State Governments 

Local authorities 

Corporations established under Central, Provincial or State Acts 

Companies as defined in the Companies Act, 1956 

Institutions, concerns or undertakings specified by Central Government that are wholly or substantially financed by government funds. 

Offences and Punishments: 

Section 3(1) - General Mischief to Public Property: 

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 5 years and fine. 
• Applies to damage to public property not covered under Section 3(2). 

Section 3(2) - Mischief to Critical Public Property: 

• Covers damage to essential infrastructure including water/light/power production facilities, oil installations, sewage works, mines, factories, public transportation, and telecommunications. 
• Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and fine. 
• Court may award less than 6 months with recorded reasons. 

Section 4 - Damage by Fire or Explosive Substance: 

• Applies when offences under Section 3 are committed using fire or explosives. 
• Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment from 1 year to 10 years and fine. 
• Court may award less than 1 year for special recorded reasons. 

Special Provisions 

Bail Restrictions (Section 5): 

• Accused or convicted persons in custody cannot be released on bail or personal bond unless prosecution has been given opportunity to oppose the application. 

Saving Clause (Section 6): 

• Provisions are in addition to, not in derogation of, other existing laws. 
• Does not exempt persons from other proceedings that could be instituted apart from this Act. 

Repeal Provision 

• The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Ordinance, 1984 was repealed. 
• All actions taken under the Ordinance are deemed to have been taken under the Act.