This criminal miscellaneous petition sought quashing of an FIR for electricity theft. The Court held prima facie satisfaction of innocence could not be recorded, stating the Special Court must adjudicate liability and potential compounding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:20027]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 171/2019
Hathi Singh S/o Shrawan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Mulana, Fatehgarh, Dist Jaisalmer
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
07/05/2024
None present on behalf of the petitioner.
By way of filing the criminal misc. petitioner under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “Therefore, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and:
The FIR No.295/2017, Police Station Antipower theft, Jaisalmer against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and the police-authority/ investigating agency may be directed not to harass the petitioner in this regard to secure the ends of justice.”
Heard.
Having gone through the case file and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court prima facie finds that the instant criminal misc. petition has been filed with a prayer for
[2024:RJ-JD:20027]
[CRLMP-171/2019]
(2 of 2)
quashing of the FIR No.295/2017 lodged at Police Station APT, District Jaisalmer for the offence punishable under Sections 135/138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
From a perusal of the FIR, it is evident that Assistant Engineer, Devikot, Jaisalmer Discom while inspecting the agricultural field of the petitioner has found that the petitioner was involved in committing electricity theft by way of taking illegal connection with the main electricity line for operating the tubewell situated in the field.
In light of the peculiar facts of the present case, this court has not been able to record a prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner was not involved in the commission of the alleged offences or that he has not committed the alleged crime. It is for the special court constituted under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act to adjudicate and decide whether after the payment of civil liability amount, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would continue or not or whether the offences committing by the petitioner are liable to be compounded or not.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any force in the present petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
421-mohit/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 135/138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 should be quashed per Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the petitioner's prima facie involvement in electricity theft precludes quashing of criminal proceedings
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hathi Singh S/o Shrawan Singh
State, Through Public Prosecutor
Executive Engineer, Jaisalmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd
Assistant Engineer (O And M)
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
