No ‘Mischief’ U/S 425 IPC: Kerala HC Quashes Proceedings Against Apartment Association Office Bearers For Disconnecting Water Supply Over Unpaid Arrears
The Kerala High Court held that not every interference with the distribution of water constitutes a ‘mischief’ under the IPC.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings against the office bearers of an Apartment Association for disconnecting the water supply of the tenants over unpaid arrears while holding that there was no overt act amounting to ‘mischief’ under Section 425 of the IPC.
The Court ordered that the tenants (defacto complainant) must pay the outstanding water charges without fail to get the water supply without interruption, otherwise, the Office bearers (Petitioners) of the Apartments Owners Welfare Association would be free to take action as per law.
A Single Bench of Justice A Badharudeen remarked, “In the present case, the petitioners disconnected the water supply provided to the rental flat possessed by the defacto complainant, when she failed to clear the arrears towards the water supply charges, after issuing notice as on 23.08.2023. Thereafter, on remitting the arrears towards the water charge, water supply was reconnected. However, according to the petitioners, as of now also Rs.50,000/- is in arrears.”
Advocate Shahul Hameed Mooppa represented the Petitioners, while Advocate T.P. Pradeep appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The prosecution alleged that the Petitioners had disconnected the water supply to the flat occupied by the defacto complainant due to the unpaid water charges.
The alleged complainant, who had resided in the flat for over 15 years, alleged that the disconnection persisted even after she remitted the outstanding amount. An FIR was subsequently registered under Section 430 read with Section 34 IPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court pointed out that the Courts should decide whether any unlawful or dishonest intention has been established. “It is not every interference with the distribution of water that constitutes mischief under the IPC. It is only interference which cannot be justified by the assertion of bona fide right that would constitute mischief,” it remarked.
Therefore, the Bench had to decide whether the Petitioners committed any mischief defined under Section 425 of the IPC, so as to attract the offence under Section 430 of the IPC.
The Court noted that the Petitioners disconnected the water supply provided to the rental flat possessed by the defacto complainant when she failed to clear the arrears towards the water supply charges, after issuing notice Thereafter, on remitting the arrears towards the water charge, the water supply was reconnected. However, according to the Petitioners, Rs.50,000 in arrears were still outstanding.
Consequently, the Court held that “Thus, the overt acts at the instance of the petitioners would not amount to an act of mischief defined under Section 425 of IPC and punishable under Section 430 of IPC, where the disconnection of water supply already reconnected soon after payment of defaulted arrears…Therefore, the prosecution against the petitioners is found to be without sufficient materials, prima facie, and the same would require quashment. Accordingly, the petition is liable to succeed.”
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Bail Application.
Cause Title: Benny Mathew & Ors. v. State Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:1007)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Shahul Hameed Mooppan, K.M.Varghese, T.A.Niyas, Abhijith Harindran and Arun T.S.
Respondents: Advocates T.P.Pradeep, P.K.Sathees Kumar, Minikumary M.V., R.K.Prasanth and Jijo Joseph; Public Prosecutor Jibu T S