/ :-22 7^1 -41'><ld'LI, ssi1<H<ls, (q<l!^y t\[i^ an^i^r h-t'M sn^r ?bH^)- ^lf^a -K^i'^^^a^ 311^1'^iIWdft'tT mOH COURT OF CR.M.B 8.B. HON'BLE SHRllJUSTICE DHIREBDRA MI8HRA APPUCANT NOH-APPI.ICAHTS 24.10.2007 Shri Santosh K. Shri GK Bcriwal, 2. The applicant by of the Code of Criminal prayed for quashing ot| before fhe Court of ifadidial also for setting aside tjie learned Sessions Judg^, chlillci4lT1 'qTT^ff ^ 'fe^t' iHif^K ^aipgiTsn^r HHATTI8&AJRH AT BB.ASPUR . N0. 170 OF 3006 Vijay Agcawal, aged about 46 years, son of "Shri Hariram Ayawal, Member of Legislative Assembly, Raigarh constituency, Resident of Chakradhar Nagar, nearby of water tank, Raigarh, TahsU & District Raigarh(CG) Laxmi Kaut Ddriwedi, S/o Devi Sharan Dwivedi, aged about 48 years, Occupation - Then Deputy District Election OflRcer, 'Hirough - District Etection OfBcer, Raigarh, CoUector Otfice, Raigarh (CG) TheState of Chhattisgarh, Through Deputy District Election Offlccr Raigarh (CO), Present address (wrongly meutioned)- Through Samanya Pmshashan Vibhag, M.P. Govermnent, BhopaL Ti^-ari, eounsel for the appUcaat. IjtyAG for the State/non-applicant No. fbe iustant petition under Section 482 Procedure (for brevity the Code) has couiplaint case No. 94/04 pending Magistrate Eirst Class, Raigarh and order dated 8,11.2005 passed by Raigarh in crinunal revision N&./ [^^R^., 31^(^1 Ri-li;* an^i ?h^ich yfect 4^ ?S[ ^!|<<lcfi|, d'dl-y'ltf, faclKiy an^i ^ftiTW^if?^ ^. 05/2005 whcreby the against rejection of his fhe Code, has been at furthfcr [revision preferred by fhe appUcant (ipUcation under Section 245(2), 249 of disniissed. Brieflv stated, (hel petition are that non-i ofAnnexure P/2 for ftie| with the aUegation thajt general election held iu campaigu.the accused fhe coniplaint wrote et4< Women College, Raigarli.l accused pcrsons to their acpenses. flvwewe^, dircctions and as a tliere was a change iii fh|e fhe Govenunent, whicy Oovernment shaU be Rs.3.000/-. rcmotve Leamed counsel general and omnibus that fhev defaced the any particulars regardirj mischiefwE committedl has been attributed to qil-Hltn^ll ^Htrlf ^ 'feT3t' •cFil+dK ^sipgiigii^f facts necessary for adjudicating this apijlicant No. 1 filed a crinunal complaint loffeace under Seetion 425 of (he IPC the applicaat was a candidatc ia pie year 1993 and during his election ibersons who were tfaree in nuinber in tction slogans on the waUs of Govt. 'Bie Election Coininission directed the thdr posters and paint thc waUs at •, fhey did aot coniply with the above •es^lt of conduct of fh.e accused persous situation offhe property beloBgiag to resulted m pecuiuary loss as fhe 4icurring eaq>enditure to fhe tune o fiir the applicant submlta that thcre are ai^egations against the accused persons w4Us of the buflding without meationmg rjg thc date aad time when fhe atleged |by the accuscd persons.' No intention PIC accused persons in the comp^aint -" /" [^^fe^ XI-HC-22 Itoa- *<s®e»^ »>.-.-;'• ant^T^l R-ii.'b 31)^1 E^^ii^) ^-li^I l;,^re''^: -:tp'^*<":-w'; ^sr "i<i^ic|'><, ^Tlly'lic, Tqcii'yy '^i siii?rwnw^fei whedeas that thev did so with an State Govcmnient attracting thc offence ol Election Commission wherebv the candidates paste posters on fhe wifhout consent of the o' to be mipleaiented 18.1.1994 i,e. after com; Inten.tion to cause wrongftil losato fhe iutention is a sine quo non for mischief. It is also argued that the i^sucd a circular of Aanexure P/ 1 |were directed not to write alogans or property or even private buildings frners. Howrevcr, fhe said circular was pros^ectnrely and the same was issued on >n4uission of the aUeged offcnce. put>Uc 'mTn ReUance is placed 8C 1653. Blhar State N'aaendranath Roy Vsl another, 1999 <a-i.L.J, Sipoattar Sinah and others V». Kriahna. ipugned| order learfaed )lato oftUe Prom perusal ailcgations in the coinp their dection campaiga Thev were directed bv ^ii^Ttn^ii 'w^ ^ f^st <r3i^u '^ariigtian^i |onthe decisions rcported in AJR 1986 Etcctricity Board &nd another Vs, Sand Kishore TamtAhuwala, 1992 Crl.t.J. 1871, Dr, BiloY Kumar Daaburma aad 394 Suvambu Badar aad otheni V«. State bv 8.1. of Polilee and AIR 1957 Allahabad 405, On fhe other ttiaid, leamed counsd for the State supported ftie impugnedl order. I have heard also perused the coinpla^nl counsel for the partfes and have it as also the irupugned order. complaint it is evldcnt that there are ^aint fhat the accuscd persons during •(^rote slogans relflted to their dections. tfae Election Comnussion to remove fhe [Tf^qfe^ XI-HC-22 ^.^y/ sn^i^T R;-ii<*> sn^T WRWHfttT 'Svf ^l^ioq, afll+f'IS, [itdl'Hy sn^t S^ITWB^I thc walls posters/ distaaper condition. However. comply with the above ffled with the atlegation persons there vras a char(j it has caused loss in its expenditure ia re-disteutipet Rs.3,000/-. To estabUsh witaesses has also been etven and rcstore the same to its origmal the accused persbns failed to (^rections, fhe instaat complaint was because of fhe act of fhe accused (ge in. the situation of fhe property as and the State shaU have to iacur the sam.e to fhe tune of aUegations in the complauit Ust of wlien tbat vfalue disteulipering Ihe ofBSiar la the matter (supra) the aUegation m.| failure of power supply fo^ owner of the flour mffl, Apex Court considerin^ coiuplaint arrived at fhe| agaiast any one offhe ofthdr action wifhin fhe In fhe mattcr of in the com.plamt was tih4t was treated bv the accuj administcred the calf adxainistered some injectjo: Grievaa.cc offhe c( fhe Doctor and the :oinplau|ifliit c^l'4f<Yt'4ll ~CT[F^ ^ f^t <P^'Lri.K ^7 atiSaT sn^T State Electricstv Boardand another fhe complaint was fhat because of four days fhe complainant, who was ^uffered wrongful loss. The Honlale the atlegations present iu the conclusion fhat no acts are alleged acjcused pcrsons whi.ch coiild bring any teiischief of the dcfinition of niischief. Ndfgendranafh Roy (supra) ttie allegation li£|ta catf belonging to the complainant sed, a veteruiarv doctor, who mitiaUy ionie oral laedicBie and fhereafter :ctjons, as a result ofwluch fhe catf died. was fhat fhe accused personsi.e. Stockltnan vrece n^ligait ia thdir duties as A- p^^N ..-..SB:sSHIC-22 't// 1 -v-ws.a ->» i tS 3 SD^I^iT R-fi;* S^V ?b+lich 'Hf?TT ~3'3[ "41-41d^l, »ill<-lilG, (sKII-Hy dam|^e they did not take propaj administeruig the injectloti iniscfaief invoives iatentiob. wrongftil loss or contemplate dauiage of wifh object of creating wi) be estabUshed. NegUgetl< miscluef. Negligence loss or damage may| circuiustances. care to check up attendaut risk iii fas. On these facts it was hdd that the or knowledgc of UkeUliood ta cause It does not uiuiecessarilv destructive character. Destruction (ongful loss or damt^e is obligatoiy to does not necessarUv aiaoynt to wifh iutention to cause wrou^ful aiaount to niischief in certain ;etice coulpled In fhe casc of dogs aUegedly bdonging the coinplainant at 1.30 I 28 goats and serious ^ accused persons iffere complainant has iailed intend to cause or has Ukely to cause wrongful destroy or duninish it's avaitable on record persons, After going throij coBiplaiat, in the Ught Honlale Apex Court in CM'4t(n41l TTP:Tcff ^ ^S <f^-^t< ^T sipgii ant^i Stc^ambu Nadar and others (supra) four to the accused had bitteu the goats of tours in fhe night resultmg iu deafh of i^ijuries to 19 goats. However, fhe [acquitted on fhe grouad fhat the |to prove that the accused persons ti|ie iatcation that by their act they are (oss or datnage to any person so as to vyue or utiMtv aud there is no euidence rega^diag fhe role played by the accused l^gh the aU^ations preseat in. ftie oljfhe principlcs oflaw? laid down by the ^hc afbresaid juc^m.eats, it is cvident that thn-f is n spwifif nltlpgatinn in the complnint that waU of [Tft^ sfe^ • ~T ~*^ XI-HC-22 '"3sits:. ^ "^, !& I SII^I^iT I<-ii+ an^T ?h4ich yfia ^/- ft!Al'ato;i,.,^-._.^.. •sleaSS^SS M ~3^t ^ll-iflcl^, t?fll<H'16, (qwi^y 3iii?r'g^nwgft? ttie Govt. Wonicn College of the applicant aud othe^ fhat the saxne were persons were not aware\ cause wrongful loss to objectioa fhat fhe compla|i particular role played because of absence of otherwise containuig Section 425 of IPC, the mitial stage. The conipl^J facts by adducit^ opuiion of fhis Court, th^ Ulegality iu dismissing applicant against the his application. under discharguag him froai the| lu fhe resutt, th|i substance is liable to dismissed. c^l&l^4tr1 'PTW^Tf ^ fe^ 7^T^K ^TSlfWTSTI^I ]was painted with the clection slogans LG^ accused persons. It canaot be said negligenfly or that fhe accused fhat by doiag so they are Ukely to owner of fhe property. So iar as la|int does not specificatly nientions the b|y the appUcant, is concerned, just sam.e in fhe coinplaint, Tyhich is of ingrcdients of offence under :omplaint cannot be quashed at fhe is required to prove the above duriug trial and therefore, in the Court below has not ctanndtted aav revision petition preferred by the passed by the trial Court rejecting £|ection 245(2), 249 of the Code for loffenceunder Section 425 offhe IPC. dofae ttie b|y tbc parljiculars onipl^inaiit evidedce tbe orcter s instaat petition bdng devoid of be dism.isscd and is accordingly, .[Tit^ ^Ra^