IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR th ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2956 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

RAHUL S/O SHRI MAHENDRA NATH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN R/O TEEN BATTI CHOURAHA MONEY RESIDENCY ADVANCE COLONY UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SHYAM DHAR SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION MAHAKAL DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI, G.A./P.L.)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05/02/2022, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Signature Not Verified “Act of 1984’ and Section 3 M.P. Sampatti Virupan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’)

registered at Police Station Mahakan, District Ujjain (M.P.).

2] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is running a coaching class, and in the night of 13/09/2018 at around 8:00 O’clock, he was found pasting a pamphlet of his coaching Kautilya Academy on the wall of the Cabin (Chouki) of police station Mahakal and thus, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner and the aforesaid charges have been framed after the charge sheet was filed.

3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is not disputing that the charge under Section 3 of the Act of 1994 is indeed made out against the petitioner which provides for penalty for defacement of property, however, no case under Section 3 of the provisions of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 is made out as there is no damage caused to the property. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of ‘mischief’ as provided under Section 2-A of the Act of 1984 which provides that the mischief shall have the same meaning as in Section 425 of IPC. It is also submitted that in the IPC also, under Section 425, there is no reference of in any defacement of any property which may amount to destroying or deamination the value of the property. Thus, it is submitted that the charge so far as it relates to Section 3 of the Act of 1984 be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there is no Nuksani Panchnama (loss memo) prepared Signature Not Verified in the present case and thus, the petition is liable to be allowed. In support of his submissions, counsel has also relied upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRL.MC No.1895 of 2023 in the case of Rohit Krishna vs. State of Kerala and another, and another decision of High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.9809 of 2022 in the case of Narayana Gowda J S and another vs. State of Karnataka and another wherein, in similar circumstances, both the High Courts have quashed the charges.

4] Learned counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and is it submitted that no case for interference is made out.

5] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6] So far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act of 1984 is concerned, the definition of mischief under the Act of 1984 provides that it would be as provided under Section 425 of the IPC. S.425 reads as under:-

“25. 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 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 suf