Dismissed

Shashi Bhushan Pandey @ Shashi Bhushan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2022A482/3322/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for theft of electricity. The court held that prima facie offence was made out despite the applicant owning the property only until a sale deed was executed, as he was using electricity at the time of the raid.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed.

Shashi Bhushan Pandey @ Shashi Bhushan Vs State of U.P… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3322 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shashi Bhushan Pandey @ Shashi Bhushan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Udit Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ankur Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for U.P. Power Corporation, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case NO. 547 of 2021 as well as charge-sheet dated 28.06.2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 181 of 2019 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 29.09.2021, under Section 135 The Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003, Police Station Anti Power Theft Thana Chandauli, District Chandauli pending in the Court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandauli.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the allegation, on 20.11.2019 when the shop, namely, New Hindustan Enterprises was inspected, then it was found that a theft of electricity was being done. He further submitted that applicant is having no concern with that premises. He further submitted that applicant never runs the shop, namely, New Hindustan Enterprises and on 06.09.2019, even before the date of incident, by way of sale deed, applicant sold the shop to one Maya Devi W/o Om Prakash Das, therefore, as per allegation if on 20.11.2019 some theft of electricity was being done then, applicant cannot be made accused for that. He further submitted that in the year 2021, RC was also issued by the Electricity department against Om Prakash Das, the husband of the owner against the dues and arrears, which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of application, but in spite of that charge-sheet has been filed in the present case against the applicant, which is bad in law.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation and learned AGA submitted that the sale deed was executed by the applicant on 06.09.2019 but, in the sale deed the details of the shop was not mentioned and further if the theft is being done by a person, who was present at the time of inspection then, as per Section 135 of Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003, he would be

¶9

liable, therefore, there is no illegality in the charge-sheet filed against the applicant.

¶10

I have heard the parties and perused the record of the case. Although, applicant challenged the entire proceedings pending against him, but he did not file even the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, from the perusal of the FIR, it reflects that when on 20.11.2019 a raid was made then, it was found that applicant was committing the theft of electricity and further if earlier from the raid, the sale deed was executed by the applicant in favour of some other person, then also if applicant is using or committing theft of electricity then by virtue of Section 135 of Electricity Act he would be liable for the same and further the mutation of the property was done by the owner Maya Devi in the year 2020 and from the perusal of the FIR and other documents on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie offence under Section 135 Electricity Act is made out against the applicant.

¶11

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.7.2022 AK Pandey

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.09 15:45:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shashi Bhushan Pandey @ Shashi Bhushan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Bhushan Pandey @ Shashi Bhushan 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

Prashant Singh @ Pinku and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Reeta Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Gangadhar Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neha Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shankar Pandey and 5 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Shanker Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another