Disposed

Anita Verma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020CRLP/6736/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quash of FIR under Section 135 Electricity Act. Court refused quash as prima facie offence made out. Directed petitioner to move compounding application under Section 152 and granted temporary stay on arrest.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR refused; petitioner directed to move compounding application under Section 152 of Electricity Act within two weeks; stay on arrest for two months granted.

Anita Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6736 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Anita Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sharan Giri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gauri Shankar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the U.P. Power Corporation (respondent no. 3) and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 02.03.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 270 of 2020, under Section 135 Electricity Act, Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner maliciously to cause harassment, as she has already sold the property in question to one Nisha Verma way back on 08.01.2016. As such, no liability falls upon the petitioner to pay the electricity bill.

¶8

However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Power Corporation submits that since there is no cogent proof that the petitioner has moved any application with regard to disconnection of the electricity connection, as such, she is bound to pay the electricity dues which is continuing in her name.

¶9

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the nature of the allegations, it cannot be said that prima facie no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, hence the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶10

It is provided that the petitioner shall move an application before the respondent no. 3 who shall look into the matter and decide the same invoking Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the appropriate government or any officer authorized by it in this

¶11

behalf shall accept from any consumer or from any person who commit or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under the Act, the sum of money by way of compounding of the offence.

¶12

It is, therefore, directed that in case the petitioner moves an application before the authority concerned within two weeks from today for compounding the offence, the authority concerned shall decide the application in accordance with law. The petitioner shall deposit the compounded amount, if any, within three weeks thereafter.

¶13

The petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case for a period of two months from today. In default of moving the application as mentioned above or makes any default in depositing the compounded amount, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer to submit a report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. accordingly.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 7.7.2020 VR/

Anita Verma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Verma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Yadav @ Soni and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anjul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jai Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harjinder Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramakant Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhagmal Vs State of U P and 2 Others