High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
LABH CHAND & ORS. v STATE & ANR. - CRLR Case No. 05291 of 2006  RD-RJ 3803 (7 August 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 5291/06 (DR.J.)
(Labh Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)
Date of Order : 07.08.2007
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr. Manish Pitaliya for the petitioners.
Mr. V.R.Mehta, P.P.
BY THE COURT:-
By the instant criminal revision petition under
Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.03.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Begun, district
Chittorgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby the trial court declined to accept the negative final report filed by the police and accepted the protest petition and took cognizance of the offence under Section 429 IPC against the petitioners.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the order impugned as also the FIR, statement of Shambhulal under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses Gaurilal, Chatralal, Shantilal and
Chhitarlal under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 429
IPC are not made out as there is no evidence showing intention to cause mischief to animal belonging to the complainant. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the FIR two persons have been named whereas cognizance has been taken against four persons.
To construe the offence under Section 429 IPC what is required is that the accused committed mischief as defined under Section 425 I.P.C. Section 425 IPC defines the mischief which reads as under:- 425. 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 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."
At this stage, from the material available on record before the trial court, it cannot be said that prima-facie offence of mischief is not made out. On careful perusal of the material available on record it appears that the author of the FIR did not witness the occurrence and the FIR has been registered on the saying of certain persons, but subsequently the witnesses who witnessed the occurrence made statement and from the statements of eye witnesses, there is prima-facie case to proceed against all the four persons. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error in the order taking cognizance and issuing process.
The revision petition has no force and it is therefore, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.