Allowed

Mukesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024A482/26001/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The court found the applicant's name was wrongly mentioned in the raid report and observed no prima facie case against them, awarding costs to the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings, charge-sheet, and cognizance order quashed; Rs.25,000 awarded to applicant.

Mukesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:141152

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26001 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Baleshwar Chaturvedi,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Satyendra Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including charge-sheet dated 11.06.2018, cognizance order dated 21.08.2019 in case no. 3543 of 2019, titled as State v. Mukesh, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2018, under Section 135 of Electricity Act, registered at P.S. Jagner, District Agra, pending in the Court of Special Judge, (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Court No.4 Agra, District Agra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the charge-sheet was filed on 11.06.2018 against the applicant. Subsequently after filing of charge-sheet, no case was made out against the applicant as the name of applicant was wrongly mentioned by the Electricity Department in the raid report.

¶9

Learned counsel for the Electricity Department states that the name of applicant was wrongly mentioned in the raid report even though on verification it was found that the applicant is not involved in the offence as stated in the FIR and subsequently

¶10

informed to the police on 26.06.2018.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it's prima-facie observed that the Electricity Department has erroneously mentioned the applicant's name in the raid report. There appears to be no case against the applicant.

¶12

In such circumstances of the case, the entire criminal proceedings including charge-sheet dated 11.06.2018, cognizance order dated 21.08.2019 in case no. 3543 of 2019, titled as State v. Mukesh, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2018, under Section 135 of Electricity Act, registered at P.S. Jagner, District Agra, pending in the Court of Special Judge, (E.C.Act)/Additional District Judge, Court No.4 Agra, District Agra, is hereby quashed qua applicant with the cost of Rs.25,000/- on the Electricity Department to be paid to the applicant towards litigation expenses. The cost shall be paid within 15 days of the receipt of copy of this order.

¶13

Accordingly, the application is allowed .

¶14

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 A. Tripathi

¶15

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prabhat Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jakir vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nazir Alias Mohd Nazir and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit and Another vs State of U.P.

Jairam Nishad vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramji Panday vs State of U.P. and Another