Allowed¶21

Sureshwar Prasad Narayan Shahi @ Sureshwar Narayan Prasad Shahi@ Sureshwar Narayan v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 May 2026CR. MISC./68658/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC CRL. MISC. No.68658 of 2021, decided 05-05-2026 by Justice Ansul (oral judgment): quashing of cognizance order dated 22.01.2021 of Special Judge, PESU Area, Patna in Special Case No. 704 of 2013 arising from Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 260 of 2013 for offences u/s 135 of the Electricity Act; police final form (house 100 meters from pole, only 15 meters wire seized, bill partly paid till September 2013); cognizance quashed because no reasons assigned for differing with final form; petition allowed; AFR/NAFR: NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order of cognizance dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, PESU Area, Patna in Special Case No. 704 of 2013 (Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 260 of 2013), so far as the petitioner is concerned. ¶21

Sureshwar Prasad Narayan Shahi @ Sureshwar Narayan Prasad Shahi@ Sureshwar Narayan Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of cognizance dated 22.01.2021, passed without assigning any reasons for differing with the final form submitted by the police, is liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶15

Court's answer

The impugned order of cognizance assigned no reasons for differing with the final form submitted by the police.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The order of cognizance dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, PESU Area, Patna in Special Case No. 704 of 2013 (Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 260 of 2013), by which cognizance was taken against the petitioner for offences u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, is quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.68658 of 2021 (Ansul, J.; oral judgment dated 05-05-2026): The petitioner sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 22.01.2011-free reference corrected below — i.e. the order of cognizance dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, PESU Area, Patna in Special Case No. 704 of 2013 (Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 260 of 2013), taking cognizance against him for offences u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. The FIR alleged a raid on 22.07.2013 at his Bakarganj, Patna house with seizure of fifteen meters of wire allegedly used to hook electricity from a pole; the police thereafter submitted a final form on the ground that the house lay 100 meters from the pole, only 15 meters of wire was seized, and part of the bill had been paid till September, 2013. On perusal, the Court found that no reasons had been assigned for differing with the police final form, and accordingly quashed the order of cognizance so far as the petitioner was concerned, allowing the petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68658 of 2021

¶2

Arising out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2013 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sureshwar Prasad Narayan Shahi @ Sureshwar Narayan Prasad Shahi @ Sureshwar Narayan, Son of Late R.P. Narayan Shahi, Resident of Village - Madhaul, P.S. - Saraiya, Distt.- Muzaffarpur- 843127.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

The State of Bihar & ===============	Anr. =====	Versus ... ... Opposite Party/s ==================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s	: : :	Mr. Shekhar Singh, Senior Advocate Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Advocate Mr. Avinash Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State ===============	: =====	Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ==================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL JUDGMENT

¶8

Date : 05-05-2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶10

2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance dated 22.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, PESU Area, Patna in Special Case No. 704 of 2013 (Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 260 of 2013) by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences u/s 135 of the Electricity Act.

¶11

3. The allegation in the FIR is that on 22.07.2013 at 2:00 P.M. a raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner situated at Bakarganj, Patna. Fifteen meters of wire was seized. The allegation is that the petitioner was illegally getting electricity from a pole by fixing a hook of the wire. After institution of the

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68658 of 2021 dt.05-05-2026 2/3

¶13

FIR, the police submitted final form on the ground that the distance of the house of the petitioner from the alleged pole was 100 meters and only 15 meters wire was seized. Moreover, the petitioner had paid the part of the bill till September, 2013. The learned Sessions Judge passed the order taking cognizance of 22.01.2021 without considering the aforesaid facts.

¶14

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation by the police is a statutory function and same cannot be brushed aside lightly. He also submits that in case once the police has submitted final form and the Magistrate has to differ with final form then he must assign reasons otherwise the same would amount to complete non-consideration of the police report which is statutory responsibility of the police.

¶15

5. Perusal of the impugned order would show that no reasons have been assigned for differing with the final form submitted by the police.

¶16

6 . Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the quashing of the order of cognizance dated 22.01.2021.

¶17

7 . In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance dated 22.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, PESU Area, Patna in Special Case No. 704 of 2013 (Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68658 of 2021 dt.05-05-2026 3/3

¶19

260 of 2013) by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences u/s 135 of the Electricity Act is quashed

¶20

so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶21

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.

¶22

(Ansul, J)

¶23

Vikash/-