Unidentified alleged railway property cannot sustain prosecution under Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act.

The petitioner was accused of stealing a printer cartridge from the office of the Superintendent (Coaching), East Central Railway, Hajipur.

The alleged theft was discovered on 22 July 2020, but the FIR was lodged on 30 July 2020.

The petitioner maintained that he removed and handed over the cartridge at the informant’s request.

A departmental inquiry found no material against him.

The Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sonpur, took cognizance under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (“R.P. (U.P.) Act”) on 3 April 2021.

The petitioner sought to quash that order.

The respondents relied on CCTV footage allegedly showing the petitioner removing the cartridge without authority.

1. Whether the allegations and material on record disclosed an offence under Section 3 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act against the petitioner

2. Whether continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court

Section 3 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act was the provision under which cognizance had been taken; the Court considered whether the record disclosed the basic elements of an offence under that provision, including that the property alleged to have been unlawfully possessed was railway property.

The Court also applied Category 1 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, under which proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence.

The Court found that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay and that the petitioner had been exonerated in the departmental inquiry.

It also noted that the cartridge had not been subjected to an identification process, leaving its identity as railway property unestablished.

On that record, the Court concluded that the offence under Section 3 was not made out and that the case fell within Category 1 of Bhajan Lal; continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

It quashed the cognizance order dated 3 April 2021, insofar as it related to the petitioner, and allowed the application.