Not Every Interference Is 'Mischief': Kerala HC Quashes Case Against Apartment Owners Association For Disconnecting Water Supply Over Unpaid Charges

Update: 2025-01-17 09:04 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings of mischief alleged against Apartment Owners Welfare Association for disconnecting water supply distribution over unpaid water charges. The Court stated that every interference with distribution of water supply would not amount to an act of mischief under Section 430 of the IPC.Section 430 of the IPC deals with diminution of supply of...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings of mischief alleged against Apartment Owners Welfare Association for disconnecting water supply distribution over unpaid water charges. The Court stated that every interference with distribution of water supply would not amount to an act of mischief under Section 430 of the IPC.

Section 430 of the IPC deals with diminution of supply of water.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the acts of the petitioners would not amount to mischief as disconnection of water supply was reconnected soon after payment of defaulted arrears.

Court stated, “….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.

The petitioners, who are office bearers of an Apartment Owners Welfare Association disconnected water supply to the rental apartment in which the de facto complainant was residing due to non-payment of water charges.

Complainant alleged that they were deprived of access to drinking water and for cooking purposes and alleged commission of offense of mischief under Section 430 of the IPC, read with Section 34.

The petitioners submitted that the complainant owed about fifty thousand rupees as water charges and that water supply was disconnected after giving notice demanding payment. It was submitted that water supply was disconnected on failure to remit water charges and thus no mischief was committed. It was also submitted that water supply was reconnected immediately on payment of arrears.

The complainant submitted that petitioners have no legal right to disconnect water supply unilaterally since they are an association registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. It was further argued that the petitioners ought to have resolved their dispute through a competent civil court.

The Court noted that as per Section 430 of the IPC, mischief is committed when a person commits any act which denies or causes to deny 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.

The Court further observed that Kerala Water Authority has the right to disconnect water supply on failure to pay water charges.

The Court added that if the Apartment Owners Welfare Association has to file civil suit to get water charges, it would affect their functioning and they would be put to trouble. It said, “…if all flat owners defaulted water supply, the association would be forced to file civil suit to get the water charges realized, through process of court, the intend of the association and its functioning would be in trouble.”

It stated that the prosecution against the petitioners is without prima facie case. It is also stated that the complainant has to pay water charges to get water supply or else, the petitioners were free to take action as per law.

As such, the case against the petitioners were quashed.

Court stated, “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.”

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Shahul Hameed Mooppan, K.M.Varghese, T.A.Niyas, Abhijith Harindran, Arun T.S.

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates T.P.Pradeep, P.K.Sathees Kumar, Minikumary M.V., R.K.Prasanth, Jijo Joseph, Public Prosecutor Jibu T S

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 2911 OF 2024

Case Title: Benny Mathew & Ors. v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 25

Click here to Read/Download order 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News