Applicant sought quashment of chargesheet under S. 482 CrPC. Court held quashing appropriate after deposit of amount and receipt of withdrawal letter from Executive Engineer, deeming further proceedings useless.
The proceedings of the complaint case were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
dxcccCourt No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9829 of 2019
Applicant :- Bijendra Singh @ Vijendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Sachan
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record and Supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the applicant is also taken on record.
Heard Sri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.None appeared for the opposite party even in the revised call.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 16.08.2018 and proceeding of S.S.T No.160 of 2019 (State vs. Bijendra Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.492 of 2018, under section 138 (1)(b) of Indian Electricity Act (Amendment), 2003, Police Station Dhaulana, District Hapur, pending before the court of Additional District & Session Judge, Hapur.
In paragraph no.4 of the Supplementary Affidavit 14.10.2019 it is categorically mentioned that the Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-II, District Hapur has written a letter on 9.7.2019 to the S.H.O.,P.S.Dhaulana, Distt. Hapur, annexed as SA-I to the supplementary affidavit,requesting him to cancel the proceeding of FIR dated 29.7.2018 against the applicant. The Executive Engineer has also given direction to his subordinates to withdraw the case lodged against the applicant as the applicant has deposited the entire amount demanded by the Electricity Department.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for theapplicant, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 15.10.2019
IA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Section 138(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 should be quashed given the deposit of the demanded amount and withdrawal request by the concerned officer.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bijendra Singh @ Vijendra Singh
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
