JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - A marriage procession on 13.12.1996 accompanied with fire works by bursting of crackers etc. resulted in setting fire to the house of the informant as a result of which valuables and household articles of that human dwelling was burnt to ashes. Petitioner is the father of the bride-groom and at his instance the fire works was carried on by accused Bhima Nayak, who is the co-accused of the Petitioner. On the aforesaid allegation F.I.R. was lodged and Puri Town P.S. ase No. 292 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. ase No. 1724 of 1996 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Puri. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 436/285/34, I.P.C. and Section 32 of Police Act was submitted. After taking cognizance of the said offences when process was issued by learned S.D.J.M., Puri, petitioner moved an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure in this Court registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 1957 of 1997, to quash the proceeding against the Petitioner. On 28.5.1997 this Court disposed of that application with the following observation: Petitioner feels aggrieved by order of learned S.D.J.M., Puri taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 436/285 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'Indian Penal Code') and Section 32, Police Act. According to Learned Counsel for Petitioner the ingredients necessary to constitute these offences do not exist. It is open to the Petitioner to highlight these aspects before learned S.D.J.M. by making an appropriate application. If such an application is made, the same shall be dealt with keeping in view the principles as laid down by the Apex Court is K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr. 1992 (5) OCR 66. It is stated that the motion shall be made on 2.7.1997. Till disposal of the application, NBW shall not be executed, if not already executed. After that order, Petitioner moved an application to recall the order of issue of process against him and that was heard and rejected by learned S.D.J.M. as per the impugned order dated 18.9.1997. Learned S.D.J.M. has noted in the impugned order that the facts alleged and the statement of witnesses available shows existence of a prima facie case against the Petitioner for the offence as noted above. Learned S.D.J.M. has noted in the impugned order that the facts alleged and the statement of witnesses available shows existence of a prima facie case against the Petitioner for the offence as noted above. Against that, Petitioner has approached this Court again u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for the same relief of quashing of the criminal proceeding or to recall the order of issue of process u/s 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 2. Without disputing the factual aspect existing on record; Mr. D.P. Dhal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, candidly but emphatically argued that act of bursting carackers by person employed to do that work if done by any such person rash by or negligently, then criminal liability does not extend vicariously against the Petitioner because he has neither intended to cause any damage to any property nor there was any necessity for him to take precaution as against the accidental dropping of the flame into the house of the informant and, therefore, the ingredients of Sections 436 and 285, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. are not at all made out against the Petitioner. 3. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand argued that carelessness on the part of the Petitioner goes simultaneously with the carelessness of the man employed to do the fire works. Since the fire work was done at the instance of the Petitioner at every step he was to be careful and to make the man employed by him to be careful relating to displaying the fire works. While dealing with the combustible article, Petitioner could not have remained complacent in the matter of precaution, which in other words amounts to carelessness and therefore, Petitioner's liability to face the trial is prima facie available, because the ingredients of the offences are well made out. Accordingly, he prays to reject the application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure 4. It is the settled principle of law that while in seisin of a matter of the above nature this Court in exercise of inherent power can and should interfere only when non-quashing of the proceeding against the Petitioner will result in failure of ends of justice or it will amount to abuse of process of Court. It is the settled principle of law that while in seisin of a matter of the above nature this Court in exercise of inherent power can and should interfere only when non-quashing of the proceeding against the Petitioner will result in failure of ends of justice or it will amount to abuse of process of Court. Keeping in view the contention advanced by both the parties and the provision of law besides the materials in the Case Diary, it is to be assessed whether this is a fit case where inherent power should be invoked to interfere with the order of issue of process or to direct for not prosecuting the Petitioner for the alleged offences. 5. Before further dealing with the matter it is appropriate to put in substance ingredients of the offence of mischief punishable u/s 436, I.P.C., and the accusation of negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter as punishable u/s 28, I.P.C. It is noted here that the term 'mischief' has been defined in Section 425, which signifies three essential ingredients to constitute the offence of mischief viz., (i) intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person; (ii) causing destruction of some property or some change in such property or in the situation thereof: and (iii) such change must destroy or diminish value or utility of such property or affects it injuriously, as the case may be. Penal provision in Sections 426 to 440, I.P.C. define and prescribe different kinds of mischief and the punishment therefore. In that way Section 435 makes a provision for punishment of mischief by fire or explosive substance of property worth one hundred rupees and above and in case of agricultural produce, property worth ten rupees an above. Whereas Section 436 provides for mischief by fire or explosive substance intending or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship, human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property. 6. Whereas Section 436 provides for mischief by fire or explosive substance intending or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship, human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property. 6. In the case at hand the occurrence house being a human dwelling and place for the custody of property, charge-sheet has been placed for the offence u/s 436, I.P.C. Thus; it is to be seen in this case whether there exists a prima facie case for the offence u/s 436, I.P.C. so far as the Petitioner is concerned. 7. The language used in Section 285 appearing in Chapter-XVI of the Penal Code relating to the offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals provides that if the accused does an act with fire or some combustible matter; (2) he does so rash or negligently so as to endanger human life or likely to cause injury or hurt to any other person; (3) knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order to safeguard against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter which was in his possession, then that constitutes the offence u/s 285, I.P.C. 8. When the provision of law stands at that with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 436 and 285, I.P.C. and the statement on record indicates that Petitioner was the 'Karta' of the bridegroom procession and the fire works was carried on at his instance, therefore, there exists a reasonable ground to take a prima facie view about his complicity with the said crime due to rash and negligent conduct both of the fire worker and the Petitioner. At the pre-trial stage the statement of the witnesses cannot be eliminated to seek justification for the plea of innocence of the Petitioner or no availability of the vicarious liability as against him. If, in course of the trial, which starts from the stage of consideration of charge, Petitioner shall be able to satisfy the Court about non-existence of a case against him, it is for the trial Court to consider that appropriately. Thus, at this stage, if there shall be no interference by this Court with order of issue of process then it will neither result in failure of ends of justice nor abuse of process of law. 9. Thus, at this stage, if there shall be no interference by this Court with order of issue of process then it will neither result in failure of ends of justice nor abuse of process of law. 9. The decisions reported in the cases of Emperor v. Nandeyappagowda Shiddangowda 1906 Crl. LJ 446; Saday Ram Malakar and Ors. v. Upendra Malakar, S/o. Late Kula Ram Malakar 1963 (2) CRI.L.J. 112 Vo1.67; and Jagat Ch. Paul and Ors. v. Dhirendra Chandra Paul AIR 1953 Tripura, 6(2) (Vol.40,C.N.6) are found distinguishable in as much as the case of fire set up to burn the rubbish inside the premises of the accused or trepass of the cattle in to the unguarded field were the circumstances for which the aforesaid Courts took the view of.innocence of the accused. One significant fact which is apparent from the aforesaid citation is that in each of the cases there was no choking of the prosecution before commencement of the trial. In each of the cases the accused faced the trial and it is in the basis of evidence on record that such decisions were taken by the respective High Courts. As already noted, the statement available on the Case Diary while making existence of prima faice case, it is for the trial Court to take appropriate decision at the time of trial if the offence is proved against the Petitioner. Therefore, the aforesaid ratio relied on by the Petitioner is found not helpful to decide that issue in his favour. 10. Thus, the application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure stands rejected and the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed on merit. Send back the LCR to the Court below along with a copy of this judgment. Final Result : Dismissed