Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54028 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5703 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunil Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Supplementary on behalf of the applicants filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Lal Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 10.11.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 20.12.2024 in Case No.1999 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2024, under Section 325 B.N.S. (State Vs. Sunil Yadav and others), Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Fourth, Court No.15, Jaunpur. 4. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been lodged on 20.10.2024 under Section 325 BNS with the allegations that applicants namely, Sunil Yadav, Anil Yadav and Amit Yadav have installed barbed wire all around their field and connected 11000 volt line in it. There is a road next to their field. On 20.10.2024 at about 5 A.M. informant's cow went there and due to electric current touching the fence died due to electric shock. School going children as well as other people come and go by the same route. After investigating charge-sheet has been submitted and the concerned Magistrate has summoned the applicants to face trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. He further submits that a civil dispute is pending between the parties, therefore, the present F.I.R. has been lodged in order to wreck vengeance and harass the applicants. He further submits that the cow does not belong to the informant as is evident from the statement of the charge-sheet witnesses. The place of occurrence is wrongly shown as the cow died in front of the house of the informant Sarvesh Yadav. No such electric fence has been installed in the field of the applicants. There is no direct evidence against the applicants. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of process of law and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. Several other submission have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants has also been touched upon at length. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that from the version of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of charge-sheet witnesses, site plan and post mortem report of the cow go to show that the incident has taken place and after investigation charge- sheet has been submitted against the applicants. As regards the contention of counsel for the applicants that the cow does not belong to the informant he submits that mischief should not have been done to the informant but any person can report about the wrongful loss or damage to any property or person. "Section 324 (1) BNS (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 cause, 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." 7. Learned AGA further submits that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222; (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 122; (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava 2009 (9) SCC 682; (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others (2019 ) Supreme (SC) 454; (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) Supreme (SC) 45; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others (2020 ) Supreme (SC) 143, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicants is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. 10. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad