JUDGMENT : Subrata Talukdar, J. Since both the CRRS involve common issues between similar parties, they are taken up for hearing analogously. In CRR 2425 of 2010 the petitioner challenges the criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of Gariahat P.S. Case No. 277 dated 26th September, 2009 under Sections 120B/431 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and the purported notice dated 9th July, 2010 issued in connection with the said case. 2. The short facts of the case are follows:- That on 26th September, 2009 at about 22:00 hours the defacto complainant, being the opposite party no.2 (for short OP2) in this application, left his house to visit various Durga puja pandals. At about 00:20 hours at night when the OP2 arrived at the Evergreen Puja Pandal on Ekdalia Road, suddenly electricity supply went off and the entire area became dark. There was a chaotic situation in the area and the crowd panicked apprehending threat to the safety and security of the visiting public. At about 00:30 hours, i.e. after 10 minutes, power was restored. 3. However, the OP2 proceeded to lodge a complaint with the Gariahat P.S. which was recorded as First Information Report (for short FIR) No. 227 dated 26th September, 2009 against unknown accused persons including officials of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (for short CESC). A complaint of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC read with Section 431 IPC relating to mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river and channel was recorded by one, Mani Kr. Sharma, the then Sub-Inspector (for short SI) of Police, Gariahat P.S. The statement of the OP2-defacto complainant was also recorded by the said Mani Kr. Sharma in which the OP2, inter alia, had stated that unknown persons conspired together to illegally shut down the power supply for the period with intent to cause mischief. 4. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR the petitioner was served with a notice by the said Mani Kr. Sharma relating to the incident in issue and was requested to convey his reply to the police, including the particulars of the persons who were responsible or who were on duty at the relevant time for maintaining power supply in Gariahat area for assisting the investigation. 5. Sharma relating to the incident in issue and was requested to convey his reply to the police, including the particulars of the persons who were responsible or who were on duty at the relevant time for maintaining power supply in Gariahat area for assisting the investigation. 5. The petitioner was therefore compelled to file the present CRR 2425 of 2010 and, upon its admission by a Hon’ble Single Bench vide its order dated 13th August, 2010 all further proceedings relating to CGR Case No. 3290 of 2009 arising out of Gariahat P.S. Case No. 277 dated 26th September, 2009 pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore were directed to remain stayed. The order of stay has been continued thereafter. 6. Sri Kaushik Gupta, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner expresses his amazement that in respect of a routine power cut which was restored after ten minutes by engineers of the CESC, the police could act in such an overzealous fashion at the behest of the OP2- defacto complainant to record a FIR of criminal conspiracy and mischief. Sri Gupta further submits that the present petitioner was the then District Engineer, CESC having his office at 6, Mandeville Gardens, Kolkata-700019. It is also the submission of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the power cut arising out of a technical snag does not attract the mischief of Section 425 IPC since electricity is not a corporeal property as defined under Section 22 IPC. The sudden power cut in the South Kolkata area on the date and time in issue were due to factors beyond the control of CESC and there cannot be any mens rea attributed to the engineers or other officers of the CESC for committing a mischief attracting the provisions of Section 431 IPC. 7. Sri Gupta next submits that it is the practise prior to the Durga Puja Festival that the organisers of community pujas meet the representatives of different utilities such as fire and emergency services, CESC etc. and, at such meetings it is made abundantly clear that adequate arrangements shall be made by all the puja committees to provide emergency supply to all vulnerable points in case of a sudden power failure due to technical reasons. 8. and, at such meetings it is made abundantly clear that adequate arrangements shall be made by all the puja committees to provide emergency supply to all vulnerable points in case of a sudden power failure due to technical reasons. 8. Recapitulating the incident of power failure on 26th September, 2009 as evidenced from a letter of the District Engineer, Kolkata South District, addressed to one, S.K. Ghosal, SI of Police attached to Kalighat P.S. in Kalighat P.S. Case No. 173 dated 26th September, 2009 which is the subject matter of the analogous revisional petition being CRR 993 of 2010, Sri Gupta submits that it was brought to the notice of the police authority by the CESC that at about 00:36 hours due to overloading the two existing circuits at Kasba 132 Substation suddenly tripped as a result of which the 132 KV Eastern Metropolitan Substation did not receive power. Thereafter, by immediate intervention of technical personnel, the supply of power was restored at about 00:47 hours on the same night, i.e. within 11 minutes. Therefore, for the said period of 11 minutes there was a temporary power cut in the southern areas of the city. 9. Applying a parity of circumstances to the facts of the present case Sri Gupta submits that for similar technical reasons the power supply was disrupted in the Gariahat area for 10 minutes. Such disruption of power supply does not, by any stretch of imagination, constitute a punishable offence and, the institution of the criminal proceeding on the basis of the overzealous steps taken by the Investigating Officer are a serious abuse of due process. 10. Sri Amarta Ghose, Ld. State Counsel appears and files affidavit of-compliance on behalf of SI Mousam Chatterjee and SI Bireswar Roy, the succeeding Investigating Officers (for short IO) of Gariahat P.S. Case No. 277 dated 26th September, 2009. From the affidavits-of compliance it transpires that since the criminal proceeding was stayed by this Hon’ble Court and such stay being extended till disposal of the present revisional application, no further steps were taken by SI Mousam Chatterjee and SI Bireswar Roy to investigate the case. 11. Sri Ghose further submits that the first Investigating Officer being also the Recording Officer of the FIR, SI Mani Kr. Sharma has since retired from service. 12. 11. Sri Ghose further submits that the first Investigating Officer being also the Recording Officer of the FIR, SI Mani Kr. Sharma has since retired from service. 12. Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record this Court is required to notice the provisions of Section 425 IPC which 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 nay 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 case, 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.” 13. Next, this Court is also required to notice Section 431 IPC which reads as follows:- “431. Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water. – Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any public road, bridge, navigation river or navigable channel, natural or artificial, impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be published with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.” 14. From the facts on record as emanate on a bare reading of the complaint this Court notices that a conspiracy has been alleged against unknown persons for illegally shutting down the power supply with the intent to commit mischief. 15. From the facts on record as emanate on a bare reading of the complaint this Court notices that a conspiracy has been alleged against unknown persons for illegally shutting down the power supply with the intent to commit mischief. 15. From the further facts as would emerge from the explanation submitted by CESC to the IO of Kalighat P.S. Case No. 173 also dated 26th September, 2009, it does not stand to reason that in connection with a technical snag leading to tripping of power supply, the intent to commit mischief as embodied in Section 431 IPC read with 425 IPC can be found against the petitioner who was then holding the official position of District Engineer, Kolkata South District of CESC Limited. 16. Furthermore, this Court is also at a loss to find any ingredient of criminal conspiracy from a bare reading of the complaint. Pursuant to a direction of this Court the OP2-defacto complainant appeared in person and when asked through Ld. State Counsel on the merits of his complaint, the OP2-complainant expressed the desire to withdraw the criminal proceeding. 17. This Court therefore definitely finds the registration of the FIR and the institution of the criminal proceeding to be utterly frivolous and a serious abuse of due process. 18. This Court also cannot help but notice the overzealous approach of the first Recording and Investigating Officer, SI Mani Kr. Sharma in registering the FIR and in issuing notice to the petitioner to assist the investigation since, as the IO he could have exercised the minimum common reasoning to first appreciate whether any criminal intent can be attributed to a senior officer of an essential service utility such as CESC in the eventuality of a sudden power tripping arising out of a technical snag. 19. This Court also notices the statements made in the affidavits-of-compliance filed by SI Sri Mousam Chatterjee and SI Bireswar Roy and observes that the only bland explanation offered is that no steps were taken by them to investigate the case in view of the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench. The affidavits-of-compliance fail to record a single line on the impropriety of investigating a meritless complaint. 20. The affidavits-of-compliance fail to record a single line on the impropriety of investigating a meritless complaint. 20. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be compensated for the mental agony and harassment caused because of the registration and carriage of an utterly frivolous and vexatious criminal proceeding. 21. Accordingly, this Court quashes the criminal proceeding arising out of Gariahat P.S. Case No. 277 dated 26th September, 2009 pending before the Ld. CJM, Alipore corresponding to CGR Case No. 3209 of 2009 as well as the notice dated 9th July, 2010. This Court also directs that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall be recovered from the pension account of SI Mani Kr. Sharma, presently retired and paid to the petitioner towards compensation. This Court further directs that SI Mausam Chatterjee and SI Bireswar Roy shall be issued with an official note for future reference requiring them to exhibit increased vigilance on the nuances of the offences coming under their investigation as well as the propriety of filing proper affidavits before Court. 22. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Eastern Division for necessary compliance. 23. The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner is directed to supply the bank particulars of the petitioner to Ld. State Counsel to assist compliance. 24. CRR 2425 of 2010 stands accordingly allowed. 25. Before parting with this case this Court further grants liberty to the present petitioner to institute a complaint under Section 211 of the IPC against the OP2-defacto complainant before the Court of the competent Magistrate, if advised. CRR 993 of 2010 26. On a parity of reasoning as expressed by this Court in its judgment and order in CRR 2425 of 2010 (supra) involving similar parties in respect of a similar complaint by the OP2-defacto complainant of Kalighat P.S. Case No. 173 dated 26th September, 2009 corresponding to CGR Case No. 3302 of 2009 pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore also stands quashed. 27. Again, on a parity of reasoning this Court is required to notice the overzealous action of the first Recording Officer, S.K. Ghoshal then posted as SI of Police, Kalighat P.S. who not only registered the FIR but also moved the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore also stands quashed. 27. Again, on a parity of reasoning this Court is required to notice the overzealous action of the first Recording Officer, S.K. Ghoshal then posted as SI of Police, Kalighat P.S. who not only registered the FIR but also moved the Ld. CJM, Alipore for issuing notice under Section 91 CrPC to the District Engineer (Kolkata South District), CESC Ltd., that is the present petitioner. By order dated 17th March, 2010 the then Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore without application of mind mechanically allowed such prayer. SI S.K. Ghoshal then issued notice under Section 91 CrPC to the present petitioner to furnish facts to carry forward the investigation. 28. In his affidavit-of-compliance filed before this Court through Ld. State Counsel, SI S.K. Ghoshal has taken the plea at paragraph 3 thereof that he took preliminary steps towards investigation of the case and upon being apprised by CESC officials that the incident arose due to a technical fault he started investigation on such premise but, could not bring the investigation to its logical conclusion since the petitioner who is described as an ‘accused’ (emphasis added) in the said affidavit-of-compliance, had obtained an order of stay from the Hon’ble Single Bench on the 9th of June, 2010. 29. For the reasons already recorded in the judgment and order of this Court in CRR 2425 of 2010 (supra), this Court is satisfied that since registration of a FIR on the basis of an utterly frivolous and vexatious complaint was an action in abuse of jurisdiction, this Court finds it fit to direct that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be also recovered from the salary account of SI S.K. Ghoshal and paid to the petitioner towards compensation. 30. Similarly, on a parity of reasoning noticing that identical affidavits-of-compliance have been filed by the succeeding IOs, SI Jayanta Mukherjee and SI Sudip Kumar Bera in connection with Kalighat P.S. Case No. 173 dated 26th September, 2009 corresponding to the affidavit-of-compliance filed by SI Mausam Chatterjee and SI Bireswar Roy in connection with Gariahat P.S. Case No. 277 of 26th September, 2009 (supra), this Court also directs that the two abovenoted officers be issued with an official note for future reference requiring them to exhibit increased vigilance on the nuances of the offences coming under their investigation as well as the propriety of filing proper affidavits before Court. 31. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division for necessary compliance. 32. The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner is directed to supply the bank particulars of the petitioner to Ld. State Counsel to assist compliance. 33. This Court further expresses its deep disapproval at the failure of the then Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore to apply his mind to the prayer of the IO prior to mechanically directing issuance of notice under Section 91 CrPC in connection with Kalighat P.S. Case No. 173 dated 26th September, 2009. This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that even on a bare perusal of the materials produced before him, the Ld. CJM could not have been oblivious to the consequences attached to his order allowing notice. 34. This Court therefore directs the Registrar (Judicial), High Court at Calcutta to communicate its abovenoted observations to the then Ld. CJM, Sri A. Sinha Roy. 35. Before parting with this case this Court also grants liberty to the petitioner to institute a complaint under Section 211 of the IPC against the OP2-defacto complainant of Kalighat P.S. Case NO. 173 dated 23rd September, 2009 before the Court of the competent Magistrate, if advised. 36. CRR 993 of 2010 stands accordingly allowed.