Allowed

Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023A482/9794/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act against the applicant. Finding that all dues were deposited and the complainant opposed further prosecution, the Court held that continuing would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Sessions Case No. 1429 of 2020 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act against the applicant are quashed.

Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9794 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Savitri Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Shekhar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This application has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1429 of 2020, State vs. Smt. Savitri Devi, (arising out of Case Crime No. 659 of 2018), under Section 135 of the Electricity Act (Amendment), 2003, P.S. Kotwali, District Basti, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.

¶6

Alok Singh, Circle Officer, P.S. Kanpur Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar and ex-Circle Officer, City, District Basti has appeared before the Court in compliance with the order dated 03.04.2023. When confronted with the question as to how he permitted a charge sheet to be filed in this case, where the applicant had deposited all dues of the Electricity Department and opposite party no. 3 had addressed a memo dated 16.10.2018 to the S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali District Basti, saying that there were no dues on account of the electricity theft, the Officer stated in a strained explanation that the memo did not bear the crime number, which caused him to miss it. This Court is not much impressed with the explanation, but on the parameters of doubt, the Court accepts this explanation.

¶7

Personal presence of Alok Singh, Circle Officer, P.S. Kanpur Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar is exempted.

¶8

A personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Basti has been filed, who has given a similar explanation in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit. The Superintendent of Police's affidavit too does not much impress this Court because in any event it

¶9

attempts to cover up the lapse on the Police's part in filing the impugned charge-sheet.

¶10

By consent of parties, heard forthwith.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 3 and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

¶12

Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 makes an unequivocal statement that in view of the applicant depositing the entire dues assessed under the theft assessment, the complainant-opposite party no. 3 does not wish to prosecute the matter any further. He also states that the applicant is entitled to compound the offence.

¶13

Considering the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act and the fact that entire sum of money due on account of the theft assessment claimed against the applicant has been made good, and, in particular, the stand of the complainant-opposite party no. 3, this Court is of opinion that permitting this prosecution to continue would be an abuse of process of Court. It would be a wastage of public time, money and resources, besides avoidable harassment of parties.

¶14

In the result this application succeeds and is allowed . Proceedings in Sessions Case No. 1429 of 2020, State vs. Smt. Savitri Devi, (arising out of Case Crime No. 659 of 2018), under Section 135 of the Electricity Act (Amendment), 2003, P.S. Kotwali, District Basti, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, are hereby quashed.

¶15

An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of Police Kotwali, District Basti that all proceedings arising out of Case Sessions Case No. 1429 of 2020, State vs. Smt. Savitri Devi, (arising out of Case Crime No. 659 of 2018), under Section 135

¶16

of the Electricity Act (Amendment), 2003, P.S. Kotwali, District Basti, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti stand quashed under orders of this Court.

¶17

This part of the order shall be caused to be carried out in the records of the police station concerned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.

¶18

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, through the learned Sessions Judge, Basti and the S.H.O. of P.S. Kotwali, District Basti through the Superintendent of Police, Basti, by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Deepak

¶20

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Mohammad Iqbal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asim Khan Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdeesh Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another