To Establish Offence Of Mischief, There Must Be Intention To Cause Loss & Destruction Caused Must Result In Loss Of Value Of Property: P&H HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that to establish the offence of mischief under Section 425 of IPC there must be an intention to cause damage to property and that should result in diminishing its value.

Justice Manisha Batra said, "It is clear that the main ingredient of offence of mischief is that there must be intent to cause wrongful loss or damage to the property and with that intent, destruction and damage should be caused resulting in diminishing the value or utility of some property. Mere causing of loss is not enough and criminal intention to cause such loss should also be established. In the instant case, however, there are bald allegations in the complaint that the petitioner had set the paddy waste/stubble on fire without producing any material on record to show so."

Mere causing of loss is not enough and criminal intention to cause such loss should also be established, added the Court.

These observations were made hearing a plea to quash FIR lodged against one Gurmail Singh under Sections 427 and 447 read with Section 511 of the IPC for allegedly entering and damaging a paddy field by setting stubble on fire. 

After examining the submission the Court noted that however, there are bald allegations in the complaint that the petitioner had set the paddy waste/stubble on fire without producing any material on record to show so.

"Neither any photograph, video nor report of the Halqa Patwari regarding damage of the crop/paddy waste has been produced on record nor there is any other material on record to show that the alleged damage had been caused or attempted to be caused on the particular part of land having fallen to the share of the granddaughters of the petitioner," it added.

The judge noted that there is also no allegation that such damage had diminished or destroyed the value or utility of the property in question or caused some change in its situation. Hence, it cannot be said that even a prima facie case for the commission of an offence under Section 427 of IPC was made out against the petitioner.

With respect to the allegation of trespassing, the Court said that the petitioner was a co-sharer in the area of property hence the offence is not made out.

Justice Batra highlighted that the complainants have also taken recourse to civil remedies pertaining to the disputed land and "it is explicit that a dispute, which is of civil nature, has been given colour of an offence of criminal trespass, which amounts to abuse of process of law and should not be allowed."

In light of the above, the Court quashed the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Mr. Harparteek Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Swati Batra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

Title: Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and another

Click here to read/download the order