Dismissed

Moti Lal Pal v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2021A482/20845/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an s. 482 application, the High Court held that while theft allegations appeared complete in the case diary, the applicant's defence regarding false prosecution could be adjudicated later. No interference was warranted at this stage of the trial proceedings, and the application was dismissed leaving other remedies open.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; all other courses of proceeding including bail remain open.

Moti Lal Pal Vs State of U.P and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20845 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Moti Lal Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Qazi Vakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the distribution corporation and; learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is, the prosecution had been lodged on wholly false and made up allegations. Earlier, the applicant had taken an electricity connection which was got disconnected upon One Time Settlement reached between the parties against payment made on 31.3.2010. Thereafter, the applicant had not obtained any fresh connection in his name and he has not committed any theft of electricity. The only connection exists in the name of the applicant's wife. Against that, full and proper payments are being made regularly. Ignoring these facts, the present allegations have emerged against the applicant which are wholly unproved. Those are based solely on the self-serving statement of the officials of the electricity department and the police officials.

¶7

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the distribution corporation would submit, at present, the ingredients of the offence alleged are made out. The existence of the other electricity connection apart, the FIR allegations are based on the inspection report. No interference may be made at this stage.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

¶9

perused the record, the correctness or otherwise of the defence being set up against the applicant apart, at present, one may only look at the FIR allegations and the case diary material to consider if the ingredients of the offence alleged are complete. Insofar as the ingredients of theft appear to be complete on the basis of the case diary material, the correctness or otherwise of the same may remain outside the scope of the proceedings in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Leaving all courses (including the proceeding for bail and anticipatory bail) open to the applicant in the proceedings that are still pending before the learned court below, no interference is warranted at this stage.

¶11

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 29.11.2021 Prakhar

Moti Lal Pal v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Lal Pal 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

Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mohan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharjeel Imam Vs State of U.P.

Shivani Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mumtaj Khan Vs State of U.P..and Another

Surendra Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another