Quashed

Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2014CRM-M/26913/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The court quashed proceedings after the petitioner compounded the offence and deposited the agreed fees with the complainant, who also admitted to the compromise.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 6 dated 21.1.2011 and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punja… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-26913-2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-26913-2011 (O&M)

¶6

Date of Decision: October 9, 2014

Harjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶11

...Respondent s

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶13

Present: Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

¶15

Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶16

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J. (Oral)

¶17

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482,

¶18

Cr.P.C., is for quashing of FIR No. 6, dated 21.1.2011, for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, registered at Police Station, Anti Power Theft, Jalandhar,

¶19

and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶20

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.10.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶21

¶22

CRM-M-26913-2011 (O&M)

¶23

During pendency of the present petition, better sense prevailed and the petitioner effected a compromise with respondent No. 2-Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and deposited the agreed compounded fees to the tune of `4,90,000/- on 3.3.2014.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant has very fairly agreed that the matter has been compounded as per the provision contained in Section 152-A of the Electricity Act, 2003. He further contends that the agreed amount to the tune of `4,90,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner with the

¶25

department. He further concedes that respondent No. 2- complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. He further submits that as per the provision contained in Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the matter should be referred to the Special Court for further necessary action.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State has also accepted the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2- complainant and has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

¶27

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.10.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶28

¶29

CRM-M-26913-2011 (O&M)

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶31

Concededly, the offence punishable under Seion 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is compoundable one. Respondent No. 2-complainant has compounded the offence and the agreed amount of `4,90,000/- has already been deposited by the petition on 3.3.2014. The said fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant as well as the learned counsel for the State.

¶32

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the pendency of the proceedings emanating from FIR No. 6, dated 21.1.2011, for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, registered at Police Station, Anti Power Theft, Jalandhar, would be sheer abuse of the process of law and, as such, the said FIR and all the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶33

October 9, 2014 Pkapoor

¶34

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶35

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.10.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Ali Mohmmad & Ors. Vs Karim Bax

Gurinder Singh & Anr. Vs Batra Theatre

Malkiat Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Himmat Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kamaljeet Singh Sehdave Vs State of Punjab

Sudeep Shukla & Ors. Vs State of Haryana