Patna High Court
Rituraj Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 1 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77468 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-408 Year-2023 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna
======================================================
RITURAJ SINHA SON OF RAVINDRA KISHORE SINHA RESIDENT OF
702 RIDGEWOOD TOWER, OMAXE FOREST, SECTOR 92, GAUTAM
BUDDHA NAGAR, PS -GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, DISTRICT-
NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. RAVISH KUMAR SON OF LATE SURENDRA SINGH RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE- DHELWA, PS- RAMKRISHNA NAGAR, DISTT- PATNA
PRESENTLY POSTED AS INCHARGE REVENUE OFFICER, NUTAN
RAJDHANI ANCHAL, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PATNA
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67027 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2023 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna
======================================================
RITURAJ SINHA SON OF RAVINDRA KISHORE SINHA R/O- 702,
RIDGEWOOD TOWER MAXE FOREST, SEC-92, GAUTAM BUDDHA
NAGAR PS- G.B NAGAR DIST- NOIDA U.P
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. RAVISH KUMAR KESHRI SON OF LATE SURENDRA SINGH
VILLAGE- DHELWA PS- RAM,KRISHNA NAGAR DIST- PATNA P/A
INCHARGE REVENUE OFFICER NAUTAN RAJDHANI ANCHAL
PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PATNA
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68946 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-392 Year-2023 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
RITURAJ SINHA SON OF RAVINDRA KISHORE SINHA RESIDENT OF
702 RIDGEWOOD TOWER OMAXE FOREST SECTOR 92 GAUTAM
BUDDHA NAGAR PS GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR DIST NOIDA
UTTAR PRADESH
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
2/22
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. TRIPURARI SHARAN SANJAY SON OF LATE NAWAL KISHORE
PRASAD SINHA POSTED AS CITY MANAGER, PATLIPUTRA
ANCHAL, PATNA NAGAR NIGAM, RESIDENT OF JHAKIPURI, EAST
KHAGAUL, PS- KHAGAUL, DIST- PATNA
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69253 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2023 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
RITURAJ SINHA SON OF RAVINDRA KISHORE SINHA RESIDENT OF
702, RIDGEWOOD TOWER, OMAXE FOREST, SECTOR 92, GAUTAM
BUDDHA NAGAR, P.S.- GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, DISTRICT-
NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. NAVIN KUMAR SON OF SHYAM CHANDRA MISHRA RESIDENT OF
- GULZARBAGH, P.S.- BYPASS, DISTRICT- PATNA.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 77468 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Chandra, Adv
: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv
: Mr. Nitish Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
For the Municipal Corp. : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Sr. Adv
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67027 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Chandra, Adv
: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv
: Mr. Nitish Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
For the Municipal Corp. : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Sr. Adv
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68946 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Chandra, Adv
: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv
: Mr. Nitish Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra. APP
For the Municipal Corp. : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Sr. Adv
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69253 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Chandra, Adv
: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv
: Mr. Nitish Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kr. Pandey, APP
For the Municipal Corp. : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Sr. Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
3/22
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present quashing petitions has been
preferred to quash the following FIRs where:-
(i). Cr. Misc. No. 77468 of 2023 was preferred by
Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 408 of 2023 dated 23.05.2023
for the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 3/4 of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 where FIR in issue runs as under :
lsok esa]
Fkkuk/;{k]
xk¡/kh eSnku Fkkuk]
iVukA
fo"k;%& izkFkfedh ntZ djus ds laca/k esaA
egk'k;]
mi;qZDr fo"k; fd laca/k esa dguk gS fd vfrdze.k ls lacaf/kr
dk;Z ds Hkze.k ds dze esa xk¡/kh eSnku ds ljdkjh fnokj ij fuosnd Jh _rqjkt
flUgk] jk"Vªh; ea=h Hkktik }kjk izpkj ds fy, ljdkjh fnokj ij isafVax dj
fnokj dks [kjkc dj fn;k x;k gSA ftldh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA
vr% ljdkjh lEifr fo:i.k vf/kfu;e dh lqlaxr /kkjkvksa ds
v/khu lacaf/kr ij izkFkfedh ntZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;A
fo'oklHkktu
g@&vLi"V 23-05-23
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
4/22
¼izHkkjh jktLo vf/kdkjh½
uwru jkt/kkuh vapy
iVuk uxj fuxe]
irk%& jfo'k dqekj
firk&Lo0 lqjsUnz flag
xzke $iks0&<syookW
Fkkuk&jked`".kk uxj]
ftyk&iVuk 800020
eksckbZy ua0&9334699925
Registered Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 408 of
2023 dated under Section 188 of I.P.C and Section 3/ 4 of
Damage to Public Property Act 1984.
(ii). Cr. Misc. No. 67027 of 2023 was preferred
by Kotwali P.S. Case No. 400 of 2023 dated 23.05.2023 for
the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 425 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 3 of
Defacement of Public Property Act, where FIR in issue runs as
under :
lsok esa]
Fkkuk/;{k]
dksrokyh Fkkuk]
iVukA
fo"k;%& izkFkfedh ntZ djus ds laca/k esaA
egk'k;]
mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd fnukad 23-05-2023 dks lqcg
11%00 cts vfrdze.k ls lacaf/kr dk;Z ds Hkze.k ds dze esa ekS;kZyksd ifjlj esa
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
5/22
tkus okys eq[; }kj ds ljkdjh fnokj ij fuosnd Jh _rqjkt flUgk] jk"Vªh;
ea=h Hkktik }kjk izpkj ds fy, ljdkjh fnokj ij isafVax dj fnokj dks [kjkc
dj fn;k x;k gSA ftldh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA
vr% ljdkjh lEifr fo:i.k vf/kfu;e dh lqlaxr /kkjkvksa ds
v/khu lacaf/kr ij izkFkfedh ntZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;A
fo'oklHkktu
g@&vLi"V 23-05-23
¼izHkkjh jktLo vf/kdkjh½
uwru jkt/kkuh vapy
iVuk uxj fuxe]
irk%& jfo'k dqekj
firk&Lo0 lqjsUnz flag
xzke $iks0&<syookW
Fkkuk&jked`".kk uxj]
ftyk&iVuk 800020
eksckbZy ua0&9334699925
Registered Kotwali P.S. Case No. 400/2023 dated
23.05.2023
under Section 188 and 425 of IPC & Section 3 of
Defacement of Public Property Act.
(iii). Cr. Misc. No. 68946 of 2023 was preferred
by Digha P.S. Case No. 392 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023 for
the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short ‘IPC‘) and Section 3 of Public Property
Defacement Act, where FIR in issue runs as under :
lsok esa]
Fkkuk/;{k]
fn?kk Fkkuk]
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
6/22iVukA
fo”k;%& izkFkfedh ntZ djus ds laca/k esaA
egk’k;]
mi;qZDr fo”k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd vfrdze.k ls lacaf/kr dk;Z
ds Hkze.k ds dze esa ikVfyiq= ?kkV ds ljkdjh fnokj ij fuosnd Jh _rqjkt
flUgk] jk”Vªh; ea=h Hkktik }kjk izpkj ds fy, ljdkjh fnokj ij isafVax dj
fnokj dks [kjkc dj fn;k x;k gSA ftldh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA
vr% ljdkjh lEifr fo:i.k vf/kfu;e dh lqlaxr /kkjkvksa ds
v/khu lacaf/kr ij izkFkfedh ntZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;A
fo’oklHkktu
g@&vLi”V 31-05-24
uxj izca/kd
ikVfyiq= vapy
iVuk uxj fuxe]
f=iqjkjh ‘kj.k lat;
c/o- Late lqjsUnz uoy fd’kksj izlkn flUgk
}kfjdkiqjh iwohZ
[kxkSy iVukRegistered Digha P.S. Case No. 392 of 2023
dated 01.06.2023 under Section 3 of Public Property
Defacement Act & Section 188 of IPC.
(iv). Cr. Misc. No. 69253 of 2023 was preferred
by Srikrishnapuri P.S. Case No. 271 of 2023 dated
01.06.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of
Bihar Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, where FIR in
issue runs as under :
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
7/22lsok esa]
Fkkuk/;{k]
Jhd`”.kkiqjh Fkkuk]
iVukA
fo”k;%& izkFkfedh ntZ djus ds laca/k esaAegk’k;]
mi;qZDr fo”k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd vfrdze.k ls lacaf/kr dk;Z
ds Hkze.k ds dze esa vkt fnukad 01@06@2023 dks le; 2%30 ih,e dks
ikVyhiq= okMZ ds ljkdjh fnokj ij fuosnd Jh _rqjkt flUgk] jk”Vªh; ea=h
Hkktik }kjk izpkj ds fy, ljdkjh fnokj ij isafVax dj fnokj dks [kjkc dj
fn;k x;k gSA ftldh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA
vr% ljdkjh lEifr fo:i.k vf/kfu;e dh lqlaxr /kkjkvksa ds
v/khu lacaf/kr ij izkFkfedh ntZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;A
fo’oklHkktu
g@&uohu 1@6@23
izHkkjh jktLo vf/kdkjh
ikVyhiq= vapy
iVuk uxj fuxe]
uohu dqekj
c/o-&Lo0 ‘;ke] pUnz feJk iVuk
xqytkj ckx] iVuk
Fkkuk&ckbZikl]
9334789621
3. The prosecution case, as alleged by the
informant, Ravish Kumar, is that while he was engaged in the
work of removal of encroachment, he noticed that Rituraj
Sinha, holding the position of Rashtriya Mantri in the BJP, was
causing defacement of public property by way of
advertisement through wall painting on the boundary wall of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
8/22Gandhi Maidan, which, being government property was
thereby allegedly damaged.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a well-known
entrepreneur and also working as the National Secretary of
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), he has been falsely
implicated in the present case out of political vengeance. The
present FIRs accuses him of defacing a government wall with
a painted slogan. However, their FIRs does not provide any
concrete basis or evidence linking the petitioner directly to the
act of painting or instructing someone to paint the wall.
5. It is also submitted that FIRs are supported by
photographs showing the posters/painting, which only contain
the name of the petitioner. The photograph does not prima-
facie suggest that the petitioner was involved directly or
indirectly with the alleged act of defacement. The petitioner
asserts that he had no knowledge of such paintings and
suggests they were carried out by his political rivals to malign
his image.
6. It is pointed out that even after assuming the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
9/22
allegations to be true, the act of painting on a wall does not
fall under the definition of “mischief” as per Section 425 IPC,
as it does not damage or change the nature or value of the
wall. Consequently, the provisions under the Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984, particularly Sections 3 and 4, do
not apply to the petitioner.
7. It is also pointed out that three other FIRs
have already been filed against him for the same occurrence
at different locations: Digha P.S. Case No. 392/2023, Sri
Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 271/2023, and Kotwali P.S. Case
No. 400/2023 within a short span of time. All are based on
identical allegations and thus suggesting a malicious approach
out of political rivalry, which also amounts to “double
jeopardy” as barred under Section 300 of Cr.P.C., and further
in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. In support of his submissions learned counsel
relied upon the report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through of State of Haryana and Others Vs.
Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1)
Supreme Court Cases 335.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
10/22
9. While concluding his argument learned counsel
pointed out that the FIRs relate to similar allegations, where
all FIRs lack prima-facie legal ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence, and, therefore, continuing with the present
proceeding only amount to abuse of the process of law,
therefore, the FIRs, as mentioned aforesaid are fit to be
quashed and set aside.
10. It would be apposite to reproduce the
Sections 188 and 425 of I.P.C. for the better understanding
of this case, which reads as under :-
188. Disobedience to order duly
promulgated by public servant.–
Whoever, knowing that, by an order
promulgated by a public servant lawfully
empowered to promulgate such order, he is
directed to abstain from a certain act, or to
take certain order with certain property in his
possession or under his management,
disobeys such direction,
shall, if such disobedience causes or
tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or
injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or
injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be
punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one month or with
fine which may extend to two hundred
rupees, or with both;
and if such disobedience causes or
tends to cause danger to human life, health
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
11/22
or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot
or affray, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which
may extend to six months, or with
fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.
Explanation.–It is not necessary
that the offender should intend to produce
harm, or contemplate his disobedience as
likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he
knows of the order which he disobeys, and
that his disobedience produces, or is likely to
produce, harm.
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.
(a) A voluntarily burns a valuable security
belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful loss
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
12/22
to Z. A has committed mischief.
(b) A introduces water in to an ice-house
belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt,
intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed
mischief.
(c) A voluntarily throws into a river a ring
belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby
causing wrongful loss to Z. A has committed
mischief.
(d) A, knowing that his effects are about to be
taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due
from him to Z, destroys those effects, with the
intention of thereby preventing Z from obtaining
satisfaction of the debt, and of thus causing
damage to Z. A has committed mischief.
(e) A having insured a ship, voluntarily causes
the same to be cast away, with the intention of
causing damage to the underwriters. A has
committed mischief.
(f) A causes a ship to be cast away, intending
thereby to cause damage to Z who has lent
money on bottomry on the ship. A has committed
mischief.
(g) A, having joint property with Z in a horse,
shoots the horse, intending thereby to cause
wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
(h) A causes cattle to enter upon a field
belonging to Z, intending to cause and knowing
that he is likely to cause damage to Z’s crop. A
has committed mischief.
11. It would also be apposite to reproduce the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
13/22
Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984 & Section 3 of Bihar Prevention of Defacement of
Property Act, 1985 for the better understanding of this case,
which reads as under :-
3. Mischief causing damage to public
property. -(1) Whoever commits mischief by
doing any act in respect of any public property,
other than public property of the nature referred
to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to five
years and with fine.
(2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act
in respect of any public property being –
2 The Prevention of Damage to Pubic Property
Act, 1984
a. any building, installation or other property
used in connection with the production,
distribution or supply of water, light, power or
energy ;
b. any oil installation;
c. any sewage work;
d. any mine or factory;
e. any means of public transportation or of tele-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
14/22
communications, or any building, installation or
other property used in connection therewith. shall
be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than six months, but
which may extend to five years and with fine:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be
recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
4. Mischief causing damage to public
property by fire or explosive substance.-
Whoever commits an offence under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) of section 3 by fire or
explosive substance shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than one year, but which may extend to
ten years and with fine: Provided that the court
may, for special reasons to be recorded in its
judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for
a term of less than one year.
Section 3 of Bihar Prevention of
Defacement of Property Act, 1985.
3. Penalty For Defacement Of Property :
(1) Any body, who defaces any property in public
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
15/22view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint
or any other material, except for the purpose of
indicating the name and address of the owner or
occupier of such property shall be deemed to
have committed an offence under this Act and he
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months or with fine,
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both. (2) Where any offence committed
under sub-section (1) is for the benefit of some
other person or a company or other body
corporate or an association of persons (whether
incorporated or not), then such other person or
President, Chairman, Director, Partner, Manager,
Secretary, Agent or any other officer or person
concerned the management thereof, as the case
may be, shall, unless he proves that the offence
was committed without his knowledge or consent,
be deemed to be guilty of such offence.
12. It would be apposite to reproduce the para
no. 102 of the Bhajan Lal Case (supra), which reads as
under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
16/22be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
informant report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of nay offence and make out
a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons
can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
17/22proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
13. Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Patna Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter referred as ‘PMC’) conceded that no counter
affidavit was filed on behalf of PMC. Therefore, by taking
shelter of the materials available on record, it is submitted by
Mr. Sinha that the name of the petitioner appears on the
alleged poster as supplicant/request maker ( nivedak) and,
therefore, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner
as per Sections 3 and 4 of the Defacement of Property Act.
On specific query of this Court, Mr. Sinha failed to point out
on record any material to demonstrate the promulgation at
the relevant point of time. It is conceded that there was no
actual damage to the wall or public property.
14. Considering the aforesaid now, let’s examine
whether a prima facie case is made out under Section 188 of
the IPC against the petitioner or not.
15. Essential legal ingredients to make out a case
under Section 188 of the IPC, require mainly four ingredients,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
18/22
which are as under:-
(i) there must be an order promulgated by a
public servant,
(ii) the public servant must have been lawfully
empowered to promulgate such order,
(iii) a person must disobey such an order, and
(iv) such disobedience must cause or tend to
cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury, or risk of it, to any
person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or
safety.
15.1. Out of all these legal requirements the most
essential is that no prosecution can be instituted under the
Section without personal complaint of the public servant
concerned, in view of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
16. The term ‘promulgation’ has not been defined
under IPC; however, in its ordinary connotation, it means ‘to
make known by public declaration, to publish or to proclaim’.
The promulgation of an order presupposes its communication
in a manner that is public and open- it does not include private
or personal communication. In this context, mere
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
19/22
disobedience of an order passed by a public servant is not
sufficient to attract the penal consequences under Section 188
of the IPC. In order to constitute an offence, the disobedience
must caused or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance, or
injury, or risk thereof, to any person lawfully employed. In the
absence of such consequences, the essential ingredients of
the offence under Section 188 of the IPC are not satisfied.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of Srinivasiah Vs. Govt.
of Mysore, AIR 1951 Mys 121, where it was held that
unless the disobedience of an order tends to cause one of the
consequences enumerated therein, no offence under Section
188 of the IPC is made out.
17. Importing the aforesaid legal dictum to the
present factual scenario, it is an admitted position that no
promulgation as meant under Section 188 of the IPC was
available at the time of lodging FIRs. Nothing on record may
suggest that said promulgation was in knowledge of the
petitioner as per the first limb of Section 188 of the IPC and
therefore, there is no occasion to discuss the second and third
limbs of Section 188 of the IPC as discussed aforesaid in para
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
20/22
no. 10 of this judgment, and hence, this Court is of the view
that no prima-facie case as alleged under Section 188 of the
IPC appears to be made out against the petitioner.
18. Let examine, whether a prima-facie case for
the offence under Section 425 of the IPC is made out against
the petitioner or not.
19. Mischief, like most crimes, comprises a
mental and a physical element. The mental element is the
intention express or implied, to cause wrongful loss or
damage. The physical element is an act of destruction or
injurious change to the property.
20. The importing of the aforesaid legal character
of mischief to the present factual scenario, it cannot be said
prima-facie that the act of petitioner was in the nature of
destruction or brought some injurious change to the property
alleged, therefore, this Court is also of the view that the
allegation as raised against the petitioner is not speaking
prima-facie about a case of mischief as alleged under Section
425 of the IPC.
21. From the bare perusal of the allegation and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
21/22
also as conceded by learned senior counsel Mr. Prasoon Sinha,
the allegation is not prima-facie constituting any offence
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public
Property Act, 1984. Now the matter is left to examine the
only remaining Section 3/4 of Bihar Prevention of Defacement
of Property Act, 1985.
22. The opening word of Section 3(1) of the Bihar
Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, emphasized that
“who defaces”. This word in itself sufficient to suggest
actual involvement “of doing” qua defacing to any public
property. It also appears from factual scenario that the
provisions of Section 3(2) of the Bihar Prevention of
Defacement of Propery Act is not applicable because pasting
of poster was not in benefit of the petitioner, as he was only
the request maker/supplicant (nivedak).
23. Admittedly, as the petitioner was not found
doing any defacement, therefore, prima-facie, allegation does
not appear to fulfill the legal ingredients as provided in the act
as discussed aforesaid.
24. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77468 of 2023 dt.01-07-2025
22/22
discussions and by taking guiding note of Bhajan Lal Case
(supra), particularly para-7, all FIRs i.e., Gandhi Maidan P.S.
Case No. 408 of 2023, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 400 of 2023,
Digha P.S. Case No. 392 of 2023 & Srikrishnapuri P.S. Case
No. 271 of 2023, which are the subject of Cr. Misc. No.
77468 of 2023, Cr. Misc. No. 67027 of 2023, Cr. Misc.
68946 of 2023 & Cr. Misc. No. 69253 of 2023
respectively qua petitioner are hereby quashed/set-aside.
25. Accordingly, all four aforementioned quashing
petitions stand allowed.
26. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
concerned trial courts forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 21.07.2025 Transmission Date 21.07.2025