The High Court dismissed the applicant's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for illegal electricity usage. Finding prima facie evidence of the offense, the court held trial could not be quashed but directed expeditious conclusion.
Quashing of proceedings dismissed; trial directed to conclude within six months.
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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| C482 No.1178 of 2012 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned B.H. for the State. Applicant–Sher Singh has filed this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the S.S.T. No.34 of 2011, State vs. Neetu, u/s 135 of Electricity Act, pending before the Sessions Judge Haridwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As per the FIR dated 20.03.2010, registered at P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar on 17.03.2010 at about 4:45 PM, an information was given by the informer to Ram Manohar Junior Engineer, who along with S.C. Tyagi Executive Engineer, Rahul Jain & Vimal Kaliyal Jr. Engineer and Hazir Hussain Lineman reached at Mohamadpur Panda where water tank was already installed to supply the water to the villagers and found that the present accused was doing electricity theft by using cable of 55 meters, which was directly connected to the electric pole; after investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant; accordingly, the court took the cognizance on 25.01.2011 against the applicant; aggrieved thereby, the applicant has knocked the doors of this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending against him before the Court below. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was neither a Gram Pradhan nor was deputed by her; he has been falsely implicated; he has no concern with the crime. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment inSushri Suman Bahanji and three others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ,reported in 2020 (2) U.D. 229 . The aforesaid judgment relates to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, inwhichthe CoordinateBenchofthis Courtfound |
2
| that no case is made out; accordingly, it allowed the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while in the present matter the higher officers/officials of the Electricity Department were present at the spot; they found that the applicant was using the electricity directly from the electric pole without obtaining any permission from the Electricity Department and 55 meters cable was also recovered from the spot; the concerned court took the cognizance under Section 135 of Electricity Act. From the perusal of the summoning order, it is ‘prima facie’ clear that the concerned court took the cognizance on the basis of evidence procured during the investigation; it is a matter of evidence whether the applicant was actually deputed by the then Gram Pradhan or not, but certainly, as per the evidence collected during the investigation the applicant was using the electricity illegally. There is no illegality or perversity found in the impugned summoning order; the concerned court took the cognizance on the basis of material collected during the trial. For the aforesaid reasons, C842 application is liable to be dismissed and the same is, thus, dismissed. Since the matter pertains to the year 2010, hence the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that, if any application for bail is submitted by the applicant after putting his appearance, the concerned court will decide the same expeditiously. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Registry to inform the Court below for onwards compliance. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.10.2021 BS |
|---|
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the criminal proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act initiated against the applicant for illegal electricity usage.
Whether the applicant was falsely implicated in the crime of electricity theft given his alleged lack of official deputation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushri Suman Bahanji and three others vs. State of Uttarakhand and othersReferred¶1
2020 (2) U.D. 229
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sher Singh
State
R.C. Khulbe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
