Disposed

Nirmala Singh v. State of U.P. through principal secretary, Ministry of power

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2021CRLP/5128/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an FIR under Section 135 of the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003, regarding power theft. Instead, it ordered the petitioner to apply for compounding under Section 152 and granted interim protection from coercive measures for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move an application for compounding under Section 152 of the Act, 2003, within two weeks; interim protection granted for six weeks.

Nirmala Singh Vs State of U.P. through principal secretary, Ministry of power — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5128 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Nirmala Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Power Counsel for Petitioner :- Harshit Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Chetan Chatterjee

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard Sri Harshit Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chetan Chatterjee learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. Perused the record of the present petition.

¶6

This petition has been filed seeking for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 05.02.2021 registered as Case Crime No.0101 of 2021, under Section 135 Act, 2003, P.S.-Anti Power Theft DistrictBallia.

¶7

At the outset, learned counsel for respondents submits that the offence as reported in the first information report dated 05.02.2021 (lodged as Case Crime No.0101 of 2021) is compoundable under Section 152 of the Act, 2003, provided the petitioner, against whom complaint has been made, moves an application before the appropriate authority.

¶8

To this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner does not take any exception. Looking to the allegations made in the first information report though this Court does not find any reason to quash the same, however, it is provided that the petitioner shall move an appropriate application before the competent authority seeking for compounding of the offence reported in the F.I.R. dated 05.02.2021 for theft of under Section 135 of the Indian (Amendment) Act, 2003.

¶9

On presentation of the said application along with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today, the competent authority shall be under obligation to consider the request of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a further period of four weeks, under due intimation to the petitioner.

¶10

For a period of six weeks from today or till the appropriate order is passed by the competent authority, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner in the

¶11

aforesaid case.

¶12

It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner does not move any application seeking compounding of the offence under Section 152 of the Act, 2003 within the period given above, the interim protection granted to him shall not be available and it would be open for the investigating authority to proceed, in accordance with law.

¶13

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.9.2021 Harshita

¶15

Digitally signed by SUNITA Digitally signed by Sadhna Rani AGARWAL Thakur Date: 2021.09.14 16:49:17 IST Date: 2021.09.14 16:49:43 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Nirmala Singh v. State of U.P. through principal secretary, Ministry of power

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Singh v. State of U.P. through principal secretary, Ministry of power

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

Smt. Priti Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bina Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrichand and another Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Sita Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditya Chaudhary Vs State of up