Alalasundaram and Another vs K. Ganesan

S.T. Ramalingam, J.—The Petitioner, Alalasundaram and Subramania Raju, Special Grade Executive Officer, Township, Tirutani, and

Water Supervisor respectively, have filed this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records C.C. No. 198 of 1989, pending

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, II, Tirutani, and quash the same under the following circumstances. The Respondent, a citizen of Gandhi

Nagar, Second Street, Tirutani filed a private complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tirutani, against the Petitioner for an offence

punishable u/s 430 I.P.C. on the ground that even though the Petitioners are in charge of the township regulating water supply to the township,

because of their laches in their duty, the public taps in the township are not supplying enough water and in certain places there are no public taps,

that the water is diverted for cleaning the lavatories as a result certain places receive copious supply, certain parts of the township do not get

enough water, that the first Petitioner and the complainant are residing in the same street, that some of the citizens who own four-storyed building

are having overhead tank facilities connected to the electric motor, that the first Petitioner has not taken notice of the same and that as a result of

the latches on their part, the streets do not get proper water supply but there is diversion of water.

The learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant, took cognizance of the complaint for an offence punishable u/s 430, I.P.C. It is against

the proceedings initiated against the Petitioners, the Petitioners have moved this Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the matters

stated in the complaint and in the sworn statement recorded from the complainant do not constitute an offence punishable u/s 430, I.P.C.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, so as to attract the offence punishable u/s 430, I.P.C. the complainant should prove that

the Petitioners are responsible for the mischief as defined in Section 425, I.P.C. and also that the Magistrate has not obtained the prior sanction to

prosecute the Petitioners as provided u/s 197(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure. A perusal of the complaint does not show that the Petitioners

had the intention to cause of knowing that they are likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction

of any property, of any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously.

As such, on the faces of the complaint, it cannot be stated that the Petitioners have committed an offence of ''mischief'' as defined in Section 425,

I.P.C. As far as the contention that no sanction has been obtained previously by the complainant as provided u/s 197(1) Code of Criminal

Procedure is concerned, it is not necessary to go into that question, since the offence u/s 425 I.P.C. has not been made out.

In the result, the Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 193 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II Tirutani are

quashed.