Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeks the quashing of charge sheet submitted in Crime No.119 of 1994 u/s 425, 426 and 427 I.P.C. relating to Police Station-Soraon, District-Allahabad and the entire proceedings arising out of the same, pending as Case No.3220 of 2006 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. 2. When the case was taken up by the Court on 26.11.2008 the impugned proceedings were put in abeyance after hearing the counsel for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State. Opportunity\ was given to the State in order to file counter affidavit. Order sheet reveals that on several occasions the A.G.A. sought time to file counter affidavit and the Court obliged. On the last date i.e. 8.1.2014 the Court while passing a stop order allowed three weeks, but no more, time for filing counter affidavit. Today when the matter was taken up, the State counsel has once again come up with his perennial prayer of seeking further time to file counter affidavit and grant adjournment. A period of more than five years is by no means an insufficient opportunity to file counter affidavit and this Court has reason to presume that the State has nothing to file in rebuttal. We may take the horse to water but cannot compel it to drink. The Court, therefore, proceeds to hear this matter on merit. 3. Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Samit Gopal has been heard on behalf of the applicant. Submissions have been made by learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. Record has been perused. 4. The contention of the counsel for applicant is that the contents of the First Information Report as well as material collected during investigation, even if taken on their face value, do not constitute the alleged offences for which the applicant has been charge sheeted. Submission is that the applicant being a political figure belonging to the opposition party has been treated as a political betenoire by the party at the helm and under the coercive influence of the party then in power, a wholly frivolous and unfounded First Information Report has been lodged against the applicant and without any investigation worth the name, present charge sheet in question has been filed even though the charge remains wholly unsubstantiated by evidence. According to the counsel the solitary statement recorded during investigation is that of first informant and there is no other material whatsoever collected by Investigating Officer. It has also been submitted that the contents of First Information Report and the statement of first informant even if taken together as such, do not fulfill any of the ingredients of the offences foisted against the applicant. Counsel further submits that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed not only because the First Information Report and the material collected during investigation do not constitute the alleged offences but also because the prosecution is manifestly attended with malafides wreaking political vengeance and the same springs out of malice with ulterior motives. The counsel has placed reliance upon the decision given by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. Submission of the counsel is that there are several such categories recognized by the Apex Court by way of illustration that if the impugned proceedings fall in either of them, they are liable to be quashed. According to the counsel the present proceeding in question fall, not in one, but in a number of such categories recognized by the Apex Court and therefore deserve its quashing forthwith. 5. Learned A.G.A. in rebuttal submits that there is no motive to falsely implicate the applicant and the charge sheet has rightly been submitted. 6. After hearing the submissions made by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court finds that the only allegation made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that contrary to the directionsissued by the Election Commission, the slogans etc. written on the walls have not been eradicated or scraped by the applicant. According to First Information Report the applicant was informed about the same but he did not comply with the directions and certain slogans in support of the applicant were found written on the wall of a water works building. Brief statement given to the Investigating Officer which has been filed as annexure-2 to the application also contains similar allegations wherein the applicant has been alleged not to have scraped the slogan despite instructions conveyed to him. It has also been alleged that in front of a house belonging to one Shri Devtadeen a slogan containing appeal on behalf of Nagarik Vyapar Manch was found written. It has also been alleged that in front of a house belonging to one Shri Devtadeen a slogan containing appeal on behalf of Nagarik Vyapar Manch was found written. Aforesaid allegations constitute the sole material on the basis of which charge sheet in question has been submitted against the applicant. Before proceeding any further it may be appropriate to extract the relevant sections of Indian Penal Code under which the prosecution against the applicant is going on. They read as follows:- 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". 426. Punishment for mischief.- Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both. 427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.-Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 7. It is so apparent that the allegations contained in the First Information Report or in the statement of first informant given to Investigating Officer during investigation do not disclose any kind of damage done to the property. Nor do they reveal any kind of diminishing of its value, not to speak of the amount of damage done or the amount of value diminished by the damage. In fact, it is very hard to find any nexus between the allegations made in the First Information Report and the offences for which the charge sheet has been submitted. Apart from this there is no material to indicate that the slogans written were either written by the applicant or were got written at his behest by his express orders or under his directions. If someone else in his zeal to support a political candidate writes some slogan on the wall it does not necessarily make the political candidate vicariously liable, so far as the penal liability as defined in the Indian Penal Code is concerned. If someone else in his zeal to support a political candidate writes some slogan on the wall it does not necessarily make the political candidate vicariously liable, so far as the penal liability as defined in the Indian Penal Code is concerned. If such a wide presumption should be allowed to be drawn then the same is very likely to be misused by the rival groups having animus against their opponents and there will be no end to frivolous prosecutions. There has to be some tangible material to show that the alleged act was either overtly done by the accused or was got done at his behest by someone else. In the absence of any such material or evidence to the same effect, it is impossible to connect the alleged writing on the wall with the applicant in a manner which may satisfy the requirement of culpable liability as defined in the Penal Code. It is also not irrelevant to mention that neither anyone from Public Works Department nor anyone from the house of aforesaid Devtadeen on whose house the slogan was allegedly found written, has come forward to lodge any complaint or report against the applicant. The owners of the building or the inmates of the house have expressed no grievance whatsoever. The First Information Report has been lodged by an official and the allegations made by him definitely do not constitute either of the offences under which the charge sheet has been submitted. In fact the learned counsel for the applicant has gone to the extent of submitting that it is not an impossibility that aforesaid Devtadeen on whose house the alleged slogan was found written might himself be a party to this act and he himself being a supporter of the applicant got it written himself on his own volition ? According to counsel there is no material on record to rule out such a possibility especially in the backdrop of the fact that aforesaid Devtadeen has not expressed any grouse against the alleged writing found on his wall. The submission is that if such is the situation then too there is no question of any damage having been done to the property or diminishing the value of the same by somebody else. Learned A.G.A. has not been able to show anything to rebut the extreme submission made by applicant's counsel. The submission is that if such is the situation then too there is no question of any damage having been done to the property or diminishing the value of the same by somebody else. Learned A.G.A. has not been able to show anything to rebut the extreme submission made by applicant's counsel. Once again the matter boils down to this that the Investigating Officer has not been able to garner any such facts or material which may even remotely make out the offences for which the applicant has been charged or which may establish a culpable live nexus between the offender and the offence. Charge sheet may be submitted and charges may be framed not on the basis of vague possibilities or wild conjectures, the same must find its basis on tangible material which may at the proper stage of trial assume the nature of admissible evidence against the applicant. 8. The court has further given opportunity to learned A.G.A. to show, if he could, that the alleged facts though do not constitute the offences for which the charge sheet has been submitted but may constitute some other offences under some other penal law, specially keeping in view the allegation that the applicant is said to have committed some infraction or breach of Election Commission's direction. But despite opportunity learned A.G.A. has not been able to show the Court any such law on the basis of which some other culpable offences under some other penal law may be carved out against the applicant. 9. It is a matter of surprise that despite so much insufficiency of material the charge sheet has been submitted. In fact the filing of the chargesheet despite complete dearth of evidence may be construed as a pointer and lends support to the submission made by applicant's counsel regarding the political malice which, according to him, has been at the back of this prosecution. The Court does not propose to enter into any great length in this regard and there is hardly any need to give any finding whether the prosecution of the application in question is attended with malafides or not because the Court is already satisfied that the First Information Report and the material collected during investigation do not constitute the alleged offences even if taken at their face value. 10. It has been held in State of Haryana Vs. 10. It has been held in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 that the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction or in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may find it fit to quash the impugned proceedings in cases :- (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 Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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 any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) .................................. (5) .................................. (6) .................................. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the 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. [Paras 102 and 103] 11. In view of the aforesaid categories recognized by the Apex Court which make the impugned proceedings liable to be quashed and in view of aforesaid finding arrived at by this Court that the offences under which the chargesheet has been submitted are not disclosed by the allegations contained either in the First Information Report or from the material collected by Investigating Officer, it is deemed fit that the impugned charge sheet and the proceedings arising out of them be quashed. 12. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned charge sheet as well as the proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Let a copy of this order be certified to the Court concerned. ______________________