Aabad Qureshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2082 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


       Writ Petition Criminal No. 1050 of 2023

Aabad Qureshi                             .............Petitioner

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents


Present:-
            Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe,
            Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
            nos.1 and 2.



                          Judgment


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioners seek quashing of FIR/Case

Crime No.411 of 2023, dated 03.06.2023, under Section

135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Kotwali

Jwalapur, District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 20.05.2023, the

informant, who are Lineman in the Uttarakhand Power

Corporation Limited along with the other officers

inspected an area. They found that the petitioner was in

the process of theft of electricity.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that, in fact, the petitioner had complained

against the Power Corporation's officers, who when not

repairing the transformer in the area, due to which, the

electricity supply has been stopped for two consecutive

days. The complaint was given on 17.05.2023 and on

20.05.2023, a false FIR against the petitioner has been

lodged; so that nobody could lodge complaint against an

officer of Power Corporation.

5. Learned State counsel was required to get

instructions. Today, learned State counsel, under

instructions, would submit that the petitioner had been

made a request on 17.05.2023 for changing the

transformer, with a high capacity transformer.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that when

the officers visited the village, they found that the

petitioner was in the process of theft of electricity and

many other persons were also doing so, due to which, the

transformer was not able to take the load and it was

damaged.

7. This is writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of

offences, generally no interference is warranted unless

there are compelling circumstances to do so.

8. The arguments of wreaking vengeance is one of

the grounds for challenge. The complainant, which the

petitioner allegedly filed was not against either of the

informant or any other officer, it was basically for

continuous supply of the electricity in the area. Therefore,

at this stage, it cannot be said that the FIR in the instant

case is mala fide.

9. The FIR in the instant case, discloses

commission of offence, which would be examined during

investigation.

10. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that there is no reason to entertain this petition.

Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the

stage of admission itself.

11. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.08.2023 Sanjay