Allahabad High Court
Ram Lakhan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 October, 2014
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42140 of 2014
Applicant :- Ram Lakhan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 38 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 926 of 2013 (State Vs. Ram Lakha) under section 138 (B) Electricity Act, police station - Aata, district Jalaun pending in the court of Special Judge E.C. Act, Orai, district Jalaun.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the electricity bills were not paid by several consumers their electricity connection were disconnected by the electricity department and the applicant was one of them. But it is vague allegation that the applicant had been illegally using electric by connecting wire from pole by himself. He has further submitted that the applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 27,984/- as his electricity dues. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet in a pedantic manner and court below has summoned him to face the trial in the charged offence in a routine manner which is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the charge sheet was submitted after investigation, on 20.11.2013. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Court below as prima facie offence under section 138-B of the Electricity Act has been made out. The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre-trial stage.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel at the bar and after going though the record of the case, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The Court below has rightly taken the cognizance against the applicant.
At the state of issuing process of the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Appex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC (Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. PP Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192 where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C
In the result, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused. The application is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30-days from today and apply for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be heard and disposed of in view of decision rendered in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP reported in 2005 Cr.LJ, 755 which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh BVs. State of UP (2009) 4 SCC 437.
Order Date :- 13.10.2014
SKS
