JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner being the accused of G.R.Case No.1285 of 2007 arising out of Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No. 131 of 2007 dated 06.06.2007 has approached before this Court for quashing of the said proceedings pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Calcutta. Facts 2. which are essential to consider the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending against him are as under:- 3. Opposite party no.2, Mr. T. Parthasarathy, Defence Estates Officer, Kolkata Circle, of Ministry of Defence, Office of the D.E.O. Kolkata Circle, 13, Camac Street, Kolkata-700 017, on 06.06.2007 lodged a written complaint with the officer-in-charge at Shakespeare Sarani Police Station. 4. Accused/petitioner is one of the Directors of Tara Properties Pvt. Ltd. which is the owner of the property situated 13, Camac Street, Kolkata- 700017. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Mr. T. Parthasarathy, Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No.131 dated 06.06.2007, was initiated against the petitioner for commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was alleged in the said F.I.R. that the petitioner deliberately disconnected/stopped the supply of water to the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th floor of 13, Camac Street, Gagan Tara Building. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for commission of alleged offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. From the materials placed on record as well as from the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the parties it appears that Tara Properties Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th floor of the building comprising of an area of 23,224 sq.ft. and the said area was leased out to the Govt. of India, Department of Defence in the year 1971. Several disputes of civil nature are pending in between the accused/petitioner and the said tenant regarding leased out of property. 7. It has been contended by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner maliciously out of private and personal grudge. of India, Department of Defence in the year 1971. Several disputes of civil nature are pending in between the accused/petitioner and the said tenant regarding leased out of property. 7. It has been contended by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner maliciously out of private and personal grudge. He has further argued that the allegations contained in the written complaint do not constitute the commission of alleged offence under Section 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the ingredients of the said offence are not present either in the written complaint or in the materials collected during the course of investigation. 8. On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecution for State has contended that the averments of the written complaint disclose the commission of alleged offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. He has further contended that all the essential requirements of offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code are present and the materials collected during investigation support the existence of prima facie case against the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending against him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The parameters of jurisdiction of High Court in exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is now well settled. 10. In this connection, I would like to mention a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . In paragraph 108, the illustrations are as follows:- 1. "Where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; 2. Where the allegations in the FIR 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 allegations in the FIR 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 any offence and make out 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 contemplate 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 person can even 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 continuation of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress, for the grievances of the aggrieved party; 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly accompanied 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." 11. I would like to refer another decision in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 . These principles are hereunder: (i) "Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge." 12. In Paragraph 4 of the written complaint, it was alleged that supply of water to the tenants was stopped due to the specific order given by the accused. 13. In Paragraph 4 of the written complaint, it was alleged that supply of water to the tenants was stopped due to the specific order given by the accused. 13. During investigation statements of three witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. One witness stated that the accused deliberately stopped the supply of water, one witness stated that the accused with the help of his subordinate stopped the supply of water; again another witness stated that with the help of some plumbers the accused deliberately stopped supply of water. During investigation Investigating Officer did not try to find out the names of the subordinate of accused or the plumbers who helped the accused to stop supply of water to the tenants. Investigating Officer did not try to find out what sort of assistance was rendered by those persons to the accused to stop the supply of water to the tenants. 14. Investigation did not disclose anything as to whether any device was used to stop the supply of water or the supply of water was stopped due to any other reasons. Stop of supply of water may be caused for various reasons. 15. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be better to have a look in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with 'mischief'. Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- 16. 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." 17. In the instant case, charge-sheet under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code has been submitted against the petitioner. In the instant case, charge-sheet under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code has been submitted against the petitioner. Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: "Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water.- Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which causes, or which he knows to be likely to cause, a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes, or for food or drink for human beings or for animals which are property, or for cleanliness or for carrying on any manufacture, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both." 18. In view of Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code mere causing of loss or damage is not sufficient to constitute an offence of mischief. The criminal intent to cause or the knowledge of the likelihood of causing such wrongful loss or damage is an essential element of the offence. 19. In view of the provision of Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code the value or utility of the property requires to be diminished or the property in question is to be affected injuriously. 20. It has been alleged in the FIR that the supply of water was stopped for last three days prior to lodging of the First Information Report on 5th June, 2007. Now the question comes as to whether the allegation of disconnecting the supply of water comes within the definition of mischief as defined in Section 425of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time another question also arises whether temporary disconnection of supply of water diminishes the value or utility of the property. In my view, temporary disconnection of water or disconnection of supply of water does not amount to destruction of property or to such a change as destroys or diminishes its utility or value, it cannot be considered mischief under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. In order to attract the provision of Section 430 of I.P.C., the offender must commit mischief within the meaning of Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. In the instant case, the uncontroverted allegations made in written 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. 23. 22. In the instant case, the uncontroverted allegations made in written 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. 23. The present case comes within the guidelines as laid down by our Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Moreover, from the materials placed on record, it can be said that continuance of the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner/accused would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In my view, it is a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 24. Accordingly, the criminal revisional application being CRR 1357 of 2015 is allowed. 25. The criminal proceeding being G.R.Case No.1285 of 2007 arising out of Shakespeare Sarani Police Station case no.131 of 06.06.2007 as well as the charge-sheet being charge-sheet no.17 dated 02.02.2008 under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. 26. Case diary be handed over to the Learned Advocate for the State immediately. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance with all necessary formalities.