Pukhraj Kushwaha vs State Of U.P. And Others

Allahabad High Court

Pukhraj Kushwaha vs State Of U.P. And Others on 1 May, 2024

Author: Saurabh Srivastava

Bench: Saurabh Srivastava

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78140
 
Court No. - 82
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5066 of 2003
 

 
Applicant :- Pukhraj Kushwaha
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Virendra Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Aditya Prakash Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shushil Shukla, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA. No one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised call and also no counter affidavit has been preferred on behalf of learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.6454 of 1998, under Section 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kila, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

3. It is the case of applicant that at the time of alleged incident, he was posted as Executive Engineer of Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II, Bareilly. It was informed to him by his subordinate officer that Rs.20,439/- was outstanding towards electricity dues in the name of opposite party no.2 who was the owner of M/s Vikas Cool Industries, Rampur Road, Bareilly. Thereupon, the applicant in his official capacity, sent a notice dated 10.07.1998 to the opposite party no.2 to deposit the said due amount of U.P. State Electricity Board (in short 'UPSEB') and in the event of non-payment within the time specified, his electricity supply connection would be disconnected by the Department. But when the opposite party no.2 did not pay the due amount of electricity within stipulated time, SDO-III on 30.09.1998 alongwith his staff visited the factory premises of the opposite party no.2 and disconnected his electricity supply connection in accordance with the rules of the Department.

4. Being aggrieved with disconnection, opposite party no.2 filed a false complaint case against the applicant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly alleging that his electricity connection was disconnected illegally by the applicant who had personally visited his factory premises and had abused and threatened him, whereupon, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, after considering the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P..C, summoned the applicant under Section 504, 506 IPC vide its order dated 29.06.1999.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at no point of time, the applicant himself visited the factory premises of the opposite party no.2 in order to effect the disconnection and moreso, the said complaint case has been filed against him with malafide intention and oblique purpose only to harass and humiliate the applicant who had only performed his official duties while ordering disconnection of electricity supply of opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that by bare perusal of the averments of complaint case also, no offence of any nature whatsoever levelled against the applicant, is made out and as such, cognizance taken up by learned court and commencement of criminal proceedings against the applicant is abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that the applicant retired in the year 2000 and now he is aged about 84 years and also suffering from old age disease. The criminal prosecution launched against the applicant, for the act of discharge of his official duties, is nothing but gross misuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for applicant relied upon several judgments passed by Hon'ble the Court which are being mentioned herein below:-

(i) Vikram Johar Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2019) 14 SCC 207]

(ii) Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka [(2015) 7 SCC 423]

(iii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 supp. (1) SCC 335]

(iv) Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2023) 8 SCC 481]

7. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application but he is not in a position to rebut the stand taken by learned counsel for applicant as no counter affidavit has been filed in these proceedings.

8. Perusal of the records reveals that name of Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel has been shown as appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 but during pendency of this instant petition, he never appeared before this Court to contest the same which is itself indicative of the mala fide intention of the opposite party No. 2 to harass the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and having perused the record, it is apparent that the act and conduct of the applicant was with respect to discharge of his official duties, in his official capacity and not otherwise. He followed the procedure and even issued notice to the opposite party No. 2 for depositing the electricity dues failing which the electricity connection of the premises of the opposite party No. 2 was stopped. This, in no way comes under the purview of offence under Section 506 IPC. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Manik Taneja (supra) makes it clear that the intention of the accused is relevant for determining the offence under Section 506 IPC. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the act of 'criminal intimidation'. The applicant wholly acted in accordance with the rules and procedure of the electricity department and has thus not committed any offence which may be defined as 'criminal intimidation'. Further, the applicant has already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2000 and it will be too harsh to now launch prosecution against the applicant for the act which he performed, in his official capacity to recover the electricity dues. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant has substance.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.6454 of 1998, under Section 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kila, District Bareilly, is hereby set aside.

11. Accordingly, present application is allowed.

Order Date :- 1.5.2024 Vivek Kr.