The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

registration of crime in Crime No.139/2022 registered for the

offences punishable under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Section 3 of the

Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act and Section 290 of the

IPC, 1860.

- 3 -

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.A.S.Ponnanna

appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Kiran.S.Javali, learned

State Public Prosecutor-I along with Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondents.

3.

Brief facts that lead the petitioners to this Court as

borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

The 1^st petitioner is a practicing Advocate and a President

of

the

Indian

Youth

Congress,

Nelamangala

Assembly

constituency. The 2^nd petitioner is also a practicing Advocate

and President of the legal cell of the Congress for the

Nelamangala Assembly Constituency. A crime comes to be

registered against the petitioners in Crime No.139/2022 on

22.09.2022 for the afore-quoted offences. It is the allegation

of the complainant that he was on night beat duty and comes

across three persons pasting bills/posters on the walls in public

places and when they tried to catch them they ran away and

later they were chased and caught and when questioned they

informed that two people i.e, the petitioners herein, over

telephone had instructed them to paste bills/posters all over

- 4 -

Nelamangala town. Based upon the said incident, the crime

comes to be registered. Registration of the crime is what

drives the petitioners to this Court.

4. Learned senior counsel Sri.A.S.Ponnanna would submit

that the very registration of the crime against the petitioners is

contrary to law, as the provisions do not get attracted to any

act of the petitioners and therefore, seeks quashment of the

entire proceedings.

5. Per-contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader would refute the submissions and would contend that

the matter is still at the stage of investigation and therefore,

this Court should not interfere at this stage and seeks dismissal

of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties

and perused the material on record.

- 5 -

7. The incident that lead to registration of the crime

against the petitioners is the pasting of bills/posters in the

Nelamangala City constituency. The allegation against the

petitioners is that they have telephonically instructed the

pasting of bills/posters in Nelamangala town within the

precincts of the police station in which the crime comes to be

registered for the afore-said offences. The offence punishable

under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act, 1984 reads as follows:

<3. Mischief causing damage to public property.4

(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.=

`

The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act mandates that

whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any

public property shall be punished with a term which may

extend up to 5 years. Mischief is not defined under the

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Section 425 of

the IPC defines what is Mischief and reads as follows:

<425. Mischief.4Whoever, 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

- 6 -

destruction of any property, or any such change in any

property or in the situation thereof as destroys or

diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously,

commits <mischief=.

Explanation 1.4It 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