Dhirendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 341 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 3035 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar,Chandra Prakash
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Neera Yadav for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the proceedings of case crime No.0051 of 2020, under Section- 138 B, police station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri as well as charge sheet No.1 dated 11.2.2020 pending before IVth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.432 of 2020.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has deposited the outstanding amount of electricy dues as well as compounding fee of Rs.2000/-. In this regard he has annexed the letter dated 29.1.2020 written by Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Mitauli, Lakhimpur Kheri addressed to Station House Officer, Kheri wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of the inquiry by enforcement team the applicant has deposited the outstanding amount of electricity dues to the tune of Rs.3912/- as well as compounding fee Rs.2000/- and the receipt number has also been stated in the said order.

4. Mr. Neera Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on the basis of the instructions, confirms the aforesaid facts.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per Section 152 of Electricity Act the said Act is compoundable and in light of the fact that compounding fee has also been deposited by the applicant and intimation has also been forwarded to the concerned Station House Officer there was no occasion for the police to have filed the charge sheet and for the Magistrate to have issued summoning order in the present case. He submits that facing prosecution would be inequitable in as much as in light of the fact that in the present case where the case has already been compounded no fruitful purpose will be served in permitting the application to face prosecution.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others passed in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3670 of 2017) and relying upon this judgment this Court in a 482 Cr.P.C. petition bearing No.15175 of 2019 (Nand Kishor Rahi Vs. State of U.P. and another) has quashed the proceedings where the dispute has been compounded as per Section 152 of the Electricity Act, as the matter has been compounded to the satisfaction of opposite party No.2.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire material available on record, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing with the prosecution.

8. In light of the fact that compounding fee has already been deposited, the petition is allowed.

9. The proceedings of case crime No.0051 of 2020, under Section- 138 B, police station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri as well as charge sheet No.1 dated 11.2.2020 pending before IVth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.432 of 2020 are quashed.

Order Date :- 7.1.2021

RKM.