Quashed

Harprasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2020A482/5462/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 138 B of the Electricity Act 2003 regarding alleged theft of electricity, holding that the offence had already been compounded by the electricity department under Section 152(1).

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 3605 of 2019 under Section 138 B of the Electricity Act is quashed; application under Section 482 CrPC allowed.

Harprasad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5462 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Harprasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ruhi Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Ms Ruhi Yadav Advocate for the applicant. Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned Advocate for the private respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the state respondent.

¶6

The present application is directed against the charge sheet no.482 of 2017 dated 17.10.2017 as also the cognizance order dated 11.11.2019 passed in Criminal Case no.3605 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime no.0646 of 2017 under Section 138 B Electricity Act, P.S-Iglas District-Aligarh.

¶7

The main ground to challenge the chargesheet and the order passed by the court below is that the criminal proceedings for alleged theft of electricity under Section 138 B of the Electricity Act 2003 cannot continue, in as much as, criminal offence has been compounded by the electricity department. A letter of the Executive Engineer dated 30.10.2017 addressed to the Station House Officer P.S-Iglas District Aligarh has been placed to demonstrate that the department decided to compound the criminal offence of theft of Electricity invoking power under Section 152(1) of the Electricity Act 2003. The said letter states that the compounding fee had been deposited and receipt dated 28.10.2017 had also been issued to the applicant. All these facts are admitted to the learned counsel for the department.

¶8

Considering the above, this court finds that in view of the provisions as contained in Section 152(1) of the Electricity Act 2003, the criminal offence of theft of electricity being the first offence had been compounded by the department, and hence the proceedings for theft of electricity under Section 138 B of the Electricity Act 2003 cannot continue.

¶9

It is, however, open for the department to make assessment for the unauthorised use of Electricity by the applicant in a civil proceedings strictly in accordance with the provision of Electricity Act, 2005.

¶10

In any case, the proceedings in criminal Case no.3605 of 2019

¶11

appears to have been initiated by the Court in ignorance to the letter dated 30.10.2017 issued by the Executive Engineer Vidyut Vitran Khand IV.

¶12

For the said proceedings in Criminal Case no.3605 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime no.0646 of 2017 under Section 138 B Electricity Act, P.S-Iglas District-Aligarh pending in the Court of Special Judge, (EC Act)/Additional Sessions & District Judge, Aligarh is hereby quashed.

¶13

The application under Section 482 is allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.6.2020 Harshita

Harprasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harprasad 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

Jeetu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mala Devi Vs State of U.P.

M/S Maa Aadi Shakti Constructions Vs State of Up and Another

Jatan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another