@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Prashant Kumar
1. This application has been filed for quashing the first information report in connection with Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No: 804 dated 10.11.2006 under Sections 135, 136, 137, 139 of the Electricity Act.
2. It is submitted by Sri Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for petitioner that electrical connection of petitioner was never disconnected, therefore, question of theft of electrical energy does not arise. He further submits that respondent Board has been impleaded and asked to file counter-affidavit, but Board has not filed counter-affidavit, thus, it will be presumed that electrical connection of petitioner was not disconnected on the date of alleged raid conducted by board officials. Accordingly, it is prayed that F.I.R. be quashed.
3. On the other hand, Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Electricity Board, submits that it is well settled that F.I.R. can be quashed only if from the allegations made therein, no offence is made out. It is further submitted that in the instant case F.I.R. reveals that electrical connection of petitioner''s premises disconnected and he was extracting electrical energy illegally by hooking. From the aforesaid allegation, offence u/s 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 is made out. He further submits that it is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not open for this Court to ask informant to adduce evidence in support of allegations made in first information report. It is submitted that such evidence can be adduced after commencement of trial.
4. Sri Prashant Pallav, in reply to aforesaid submission made by Sri V.P. Singh submits that Supreme Court in All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd and Ors. versus Dhanesh Badamal Jain and Anr. has held that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court can take info consideration not only admitted facts, but also can look into the admitted documents. It is submitted that if from perusal of admitted documents no case is made out, then the prosecution can be quashed.
5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly in the first information report there is allegation that petitioner was extracting electrical energy by hooking. It is also alleged that electrical connection of petitioner''s premises had already been disconnected. It is worth mentioning that petitioner at paragraph number 6 of this application stated that electrical connection of petitioner''s premises never disconnected, nor any notice served upon petitioner for such disconnection. However in support of above statement petitioner did not annex any bill, issued by Jharkhand State Electricity Board, of the period prior to lodging of first information report. Under the said circumstance, judgment of Supreme Court in All Cargo Movers Case (Supra) has no application in this case, because it is not admitted by J.S.E.B. that electrical connection of petitioner never disconnected nor petitioner annexed any admitted documents to show that allegation made in first information report is incorrect.
6. It has been held by their Lordships of Supreme Court in
7. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application. Same is accordingly dismissed.
