Disposed

Ram Sajeevan Mishra v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020A482/2839/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed to quash charge sheets arising from alleged violations under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The court directed the applicant to move an application before the concerned Electricity authority within 30 days and stayed coercive action for three months.

What did the court decide?

Stay of coercive action for three months or till disposal of application before Electricity authority, to be filed within 30 days.

Ram Sajeevan Mishra Vs State of U.P.and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2839 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Sajeevan Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahboob Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet as well as entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No.131 of 2019, arising out of case crime no.392 of 2017, under Section 135 Electricity Act, Police Station- Husain Ganj, DistrictFatehpur pending before Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge E.C. Act, Fatehpur and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid Session Trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was living at Fatehpur. Plot in question, on which tube-well is functional, was in the share of his son. Applicant has no concern either with plot in question or tube-well. Initially one complaint was made to the District Magistrate concerned and on that basis F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person but charge sheet was submitted against the applicant. No proper investigation was conducted in the matter nor the concerned person has been arrayed as an accused. It is further submitted that on an application moved by the applicant an enquiry was conducted by Vidhyut Lokpal and the tube-well was unearthed. Referring to the order passed by the Vidhyut Lokpal, it is also submitted that continuation of proceeding of special session trial against the applicant is abuse of process of law. Proper investigation has not been conducted in the matter. In the last, it is submitted that since offence in question is compoundable and the applicant is ready to settle the matter, some time may be granted to him for the said purpose

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that if the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of application are taken into consideration, then also there was oral agreement between applicant and his son. At the time of inspection illegal connection and tube-well (submersible) was found on the spot. During investigation sufficient evidence was found against the applicant, therefore, charge sheet was submitted against him. Order taking cognizance in the matter is also not illegal.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the willingness shown by learned counsel for the

¶11

applicant, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this application pending. Hence, applicant is directed to move an application under the relevant provisions of Electricity Act before the concerned authority within 30 days from today. If such application alongwith certified copy of this order is moved by the applicant, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of same in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned.

¶12

For a period of three months or till the disposal of the said application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. If case of default on the part of applicant, the interim protection granted to the applicant shall automatically come to an end.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 27.1.2020/

¶15

safi

Ram Sajeevan Mishra v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sajeevan Mishra v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyan Chandra Vishwakarma Vs State of Up and 7 Ors.

Gyan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bahadur @ Bahadur Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Mohd Najim Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Malati Devi and Another Vs the State of Up and Another