Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 January, 2023
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43277 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajesh Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Shankar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Udit Chandra
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Udit Chandra, counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the order dated 3.11.2022 passed by Special Judge (E.C.Act), Jaunpur in Criminal Case No. 280 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 515 of 2010, under Section 135 of Electricity Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District- Jaunpur, by which the applicant's application for discharge has been rejected and the applicant has been directed to appear before the court below on 11.11.2022 for hearing the accused.
Brief facts giving rise to this application is that a first information report was lodged by opposite party No. 2 regarding the theft of electricity by the applicant vide case crime No. 515 of 2010, under Section 138 of Electricity Act. On the basis of said first information report, the police investigated the matter and submitted the final report against the applicant. The said final report was rejected by the court below and the applicant was summoned to face trial vide order dated 25.5.2013.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the applicant filed an Application u/s 482 No. 16455 of 2021, Rajesh Singh vs. State of U.P. & another and this Court vide its order dated 16.9.2021 dismissed the said application. Consequent thereto, the applicant appeared before the court below and after being released on bail, filed an application for discharging him, however the trial court vide its order dated 3.11.2022 rejected the said discharge application by holding that the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is to be tried either summarily or as a summons trial, in which there is no necessity to frame a formal charge, therefore, the discharge application is not maintainable and has accordingly rejected the said discharge application.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the applicant has again approached this Court and has submitted that infact the instant case should have proceeded as a complaint and not on the basis of police report, therefore, the entire proceedings including the rejection of his discharge application is bad in the eye of law, therefore, liable to be quashed.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2019 (8) SCC 27.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the said submission of the counsel for the applicant has already been turned down earlier while deciding the Application u/s 482 No. 16455 of 2021 vide order dated 16.9.2021 and as such, the said plea cannot again be raised before a coordinate Bench of this Court, which even otherwise is not worth consideration, in view of the settled propositions of law in this regard. Furthermore, in cases triable as a summons case/summary trial, it is not always necessary to frame a formal charge and, therefore, the question of discharging accused does not arise. The reason assigned by the trial court is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is triable as a summons case or as a summary trial as provided in Section 251/260 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In a summons case when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.
The case law cited by the counsel for the applicant is clearly distinguishable on facts and has no relevance to the controversy in question.
Thus, in view of the said provision, there is no question of discharging the accused as claimed by the applicant and the trial court in light of the said provision contained in Section 251/260 Cr.P.C. has rightly rejected the discharge application of the applicant, which order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety or infirmity, as such no interference is required at this stage.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.1.2023
KU
