Disposed

Hetram and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2020CRLP/257/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash an FIR under Section 138 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 due to prima facie cognizable offence. However, it directed compounding upon applicant's compliance with deposit timelines, suspended arrest for three months if complied, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; directions given to move compounding application and deposit amount within timeline; arrest suspended for three months if complied.

Hetram and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 257 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Hetram And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Preet Pal Singh Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Girish Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been field with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. dated 25.2.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 132 of 2018 under Section 138 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, P.S. Bilsi, District Budaun.

¶7

From the perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie, cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interfering in the F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.

¶8

However,considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the above mentioned offence is compoundable and the petitioners are ready to deposit the compounded amount, it is directed that in case the petitioners move an application before the authority concerned within one week from today for compounding the offence, the authority concerned of the Electricity Department shall be summoned by the court concerned within two weeks thereafter for the purpose of submitting the compounding report.

¶9

The authority concerned shall submit the compounding report within 15 days thereafter. The petitioners shall deposit the compounded amount within three weeks thereafter. Upon receipt of the

¶10

compounding report, the authority concerned shall pass appropriate order within a period of three weeks.

¶11

In case the petitioners deposit the compounded amount in the manner as mentioned above, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case for a period of three months from today. In default of moving the application as mentioned above and to deposit the amount as directed above, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer to arrest the petitioners.

¶12

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 10.1.2020 AKK

Hetram and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hetram and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandan Alias Lalu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chaman Miyan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Sharma @ Aaditya Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others