Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Although notices have been duly served on the opposite parties, but none appeared. 2. The petitioners in this case are the personnel of Urban Area of B. S. E. B. They have been proceeded under Section 429, I.P.C. on a complaint being filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 in Complaint Case No. 71 of 1993 before the C. J. M. Chatra. The case was then made over to Shri G, K. Ray, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chatra, who after an enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Section 429, I.P.C. vide order dated 24-1-1994. 3. The petitioners have come up for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 24-1-1994. 4. The complaint petition, which has been filed by opposite party No. 2 reveals that on account of gusty winds and rains on 24-5-1993 in the night the electric pole carrying electric lines fell down, which was definitely causing danger to the public in general and as such complainant along with other went to the local B.S.E.B. Office at Chatra to ask the B.S.E.B, Personnel to come down to the place of occurrence and to cut out the electric line, if it was found flowing through the electric pole so that the same may not cause danger. According to the complainant, he alongwith other kept waiting for accompanying the petitioners to the place of occurrence, but when they were late and ultimately denied to go to the place of occurrence, they returned and on the way they could find that three buffaloes belonging to the opposite Party No. 2 got electrocuted and died. According to the complainant, the buffaloes valued at about Rs. 20,000. It has been stated that because of the mischief committed by the petitioners, the complainant had to incur such a loss. 5. Three witnesses for and on behalf of the complainant has been examined and they have supported the complainant and then cognizance was taken under Section 429, IPC against the petitioner. It should be mentioned here that in the complaint petition, specific names of the petitioners were not taken except the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been named by their designation only. 6. It should be mentioned here that in the complaint petition, specific names of the petitioners were not taken except the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been named by their designation only. 6. For attracting the provisions of Section 429, IPC, it must sumptive (sic) to the definition of mischief as contemplated under Section 425 IPC. The essential elements for the offence of mischief is that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property, injured or destroyed. Here neither the complaint petition nor the inquiry caused under Section 202, Cr.P.C. revealed any such intention on the part of the accused-petioners. Practically, they had not even the knowledge about such live wiring or dyhing of bull and oxen due to electrocution. Even if the allegations made in the complaint is taken to be true on its face value then also the mischief as contemplated under Section 425, IPC could not be attracted against the petitioners in the present case. When the petitioners were informed about the falling of the electric pole (even if the same is true), it was not known whether the electric line was flowing through the pole till then or not and the electric pole was fallen not at the negligence of the petitioners but by gusty winds admittedly and hence due to act of God. Even the complainant was also not knowing of the electrocution of his buffalloes, when the complainant was proceeding towards the B.S.E B. office at Chatra he must also required to take proper care so that no undue damage is caused as he was totally aware of the danger due to the falling of the electric pole. When the offence is not attracted from the admitted position of the case as revealed in the complaint petition and when there is self-sufficient Electricity Act with its Rules covering all sorts of action and deeds and misdeeds due to the electrification, then the general provisions of Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. 7. However, I am not going into that question, but as stated earlier the bundle of facts revealed by the complaint petition and enquiry caused under Section 202, Cr.P.C. does not attract the provisions of mischief defined under Section 425, IPC. No criminality or penalogy under Section 429 IPC can be attracted against the petitioners. 7. However, I am not going into that question, but as stated earlier the bundle of facts revealed by the complaint petition and enquiry caused under Section 202, Cr.P.C. does not attract the provisions of mischief defined under Section 425, IPC. No criminality or penalogy under Section 429 IPC can be attracted against the petitioners. Hence, this petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.P. Case No, 71/93 now pending before Shri G. K.Roy, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chatra is hereby quashed against these petitioners. No. order as to costs.