RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner including the F.I.R. of Bariatu P.S. Case No. 83 of 2007 and the order dated 24.08.2007 by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 431/427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, 1984 now pending in the Court of Shri S.K. Upadhaya, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

(2.) The law was set in motion on the written report presented by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, R.M.C.H., Ranchi. The informant alleged in the written report that underground cable wire of 11 K.V. which belonged to Jharkhand State Electricity Board was damaged by the petitioner Rajesh Kumar, a contractor in the P.H.E.D. as a result of which power supply which was made to the feeder at Karamtoli badly disrupted and about one thousand consumers suffered, thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The informant requested to institute a case and take effective step.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that the petitioner participated in the technical bid with his offer, which was opened on 01.06.2005. The Tender Committee decided to award the work of supply and lying of DIK-7 pipes for the distribution of water and further installation and construction of allied works at Morabadi and adjoining areas under Drinking Water and Sanitation Department to the petitioner and in this regard he was intimated by the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 15.12.2005. He was further authorised for cutting of road facilitating the distribution of pipe lines on the defined area. He was required under agreement to repair the road even by cutting it. Admittedly, during construction and repair of roads some cable wire was damaged inadvertently by the workers for which the petitioner expressed his willingness to pay the compensation in terms of the agreement and without considering the work orders assigned to the petitioner, a criminal case was lodged against him by assessing the damage of Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The dispute was purely civil in nature and that no criminal case at all was attracted in terms of the work order. As a matter of fact, the cable was a dead line even then the petitioner offered to compensate the loss assessed which was not accepted. The petitioner had committed no mischief within the meaning of Indian Penal Code and that Sec. 2 (a) of the Prevention of Damage to Properties Act, 1984 adopted the definition of mischief as has been defined under Sec. 425 of the Indian Penal Code and the essence of mischief is mens rea i.e., anything done with intent to cause wrongful loss or damage to public or a person. In that view of the matter cognizance of the offence taken against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 431/427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, 1984 would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court as it was nowhere alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was himself responsible for the work being done on the road but admittedly the work was being done by the workmen in execution of the work which was just a mistake that the cable sustained damage and for that the petitioner was not criminally liable.