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
23.05.2023under 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 6/22 iVukA 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 iVuk Registered 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 7/22 lsok esa] Fkkuk/;{k] Jhd`".kkiqjh Fkkuk] iVukA 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 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 8/22 Gandhi 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 15/22 view 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 16/22 be 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 17/22 proceeding 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