Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Omprakash vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:36499) on 3 September, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JD:36499]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 882/2018
Omprakash S/o Sh. Govind Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Village Jakharawali, P.s. Pilibanga,
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Shankar Lal S/o Sh. Karshan Lal, R/o Village Jakharawali,
Police Station Pilibanga,
3. Kalawati W/o Sh. Karshan Lal, R/o Village Jakharawali,
P.s. Pilibanga,
4. Mula Ram @ Meghraj S/o Sh. Karshan Lal, R/o Village
Jakharawali, P.s. Pilibanga
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.R. Budania.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP.
Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
03/09/2024
1. The petitioner had lodged FIR No.258/2012 with Pilibanga
Police Station for offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act (hereinafter referred to as "the PDP
Act") against respondent Nos.2 to 4. After investigation of the FIR,
the police submitted a negative report. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed a protest petition and on protest petition, the Learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pilibanga took cognizance for offence under
Section 3 of the said Act by order dated 24.09.2015. The said
order was challenged by private respondent in Criminal Revision
No.150/2017 before the Learned Sessions Judge. The matter was
[2024:RJ-JD:36499] (2 of 4) [CRLR-882/2018]
heard by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the
cognizance by order dated 14.06.2018. Now the order of
revisional court is under challenge herein.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The prosecution case is that respondent Nos.2 to 4 get
irrigation water from chak stone No.90/373. Petitioner's land is in
chak No.3 Stone No.90/374. In the night of 25.05.2011, the
respondents constructed one more naka without permission of the
competent authority of Irrigation Department, as such, they were
responsible for damage to the public property. The revisional
Court was of the view that the offence under Section 3 of the PDP
Act read with Section 425 IPC is not made out for the reason that
no other than the complainant came forward with complaint for
damage to them due to creation of a fresh water outlet by the
accused persons to irrigate their field.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the
judgment of this court dated 10.04.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.8882/2016 in same dispute arising between the
parties. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
this outlet was inspected by the Irrigation Department. On inquiry,
the department found that there was no damage to the water
channel. So far permission is concerned, the accused persons
could take post facto permission.
Section 425 IPC defines mischief as follows :
"425. Mischief.- 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
[2024:RJ-JD:36499] (3 of 4) [CRLR-882/2018]
situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
Explanation 1.- It is not essential to the offence of mischief
that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to
the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is
sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to
cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring
any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.
Explanation 2.- Mischief may be committed by an act
affecting property belonging to the person who commits the
act, or to that person and others jointly."
In view of the provision under Section 2(a) of the PDP Act,
definition would be applicable in the matter of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act as well.
Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
defines the offence as follows :
"3. Mischief causing damage to public property.
(1)Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in
respect of any public property, other than public
property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2),
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to five years and with fine.
(2)Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in
respect of any public property being -
(a) The Prevention of Damage to Pubic Property Act,
1984 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 installation;
(c) any sewage work;
(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,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months, but which may
extend to five years and with fine:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be
recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than six months".
[2024:RJ-JD:36499] (4 of 4) [CRLR-882/2018]
5. Evidently, no material is there to substantiate that the act of
the accused was with intent to cause or knowing that is likely to
cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. The
people getting water from the said channel except the
complainant have not come up with any grievance that the action
of the petitioner was intentional one. Rather the material came to
substantiate that the accused persons had replaced a kaccha
water outlet from the main water course to pakka one just to get
a smooth flow of water.
6. No substantial material is there to interfere with the order of
the Revisional Court. Hence, this criminal revision petition stands
dismissed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
29-charul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
