Criminal Petition No.6225 of 2008
Smt. Amrutha W/o Late Shankeraiah
aged about 44 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o Plot No.129, Sai Ram Colony,
Champapet, Cyberabad.
State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another
Counsel for petitioner: Mr. A. Mahadev
Counsel for respondent: Public Prosecutor
This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.711 of 2008 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, R.R. District at
L.B. Nagar.
2. The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The allegation against the petitioner is that she had taken electric service connection from the underground.
It appears that the municipal authorities had undertaken repairing work and dug a pit at the place where the service connection was taken. As it was rainy season, the pit was filled with water. The cow belonging to the defacto complainant when came in contact with the water in the pit, received electric shock and died on 28-06-2008 at about 13-00 hours.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ingredients of Section 429 of IPC have not been made out from the complaint allegations and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. Section 429 of IPC reads as follows:
"429. Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees.-Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both."
From a reading of the above provision it is clear that a person, who commits mischief of killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless of any animal referred above, is liable to be punished. But, admittedly it is not the case of killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless of any animal.
5. Now we have to see whether the petitioner is guilty of committing any mischief. The word 'mischief' has been defined under Section 425 of IPC, which reads as follows:
"425. Mischief.-Whoever, with intent to cause, of 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 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 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."
6. As seen from the above definition of 'mischief', it is clear that the offender should have intention to commit the offence. In the absence of any intention to cause any 'mischief', I am of the view that the ingredients of Section 429 do not attract.
7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the ingredients of Section 429 of IPC are not made out from a reading of the complaint itself and therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.711 of 2008 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, are hereby quashed.


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.