Bashishth Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3043 of 2015 Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-36 Year-2014 Thana- MURAR District- Buxar ====================================================== Bashishth Singh S/o Late Shiv Muni Singh @ Muni Mahto Resident of Village-Masarhiya, P.O.-Chaugain, P.S.-Murar, District-Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sri Saurabh Kumar, Asstt. Engineer, SBPDCL, Electric Supply, SubDivision, Dumraon, District-Buxar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ===================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 2 :

Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for the following relief:

"That, this application is for quashing the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner in connection with Murar PS Case No. 36/14 dated 03.08.2014 registered under section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 on the basis of written report of Sri Saurabh Kumar, Electric Engineer, South Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (SBPDCL), Electric Supply Sub-division, Dumraon, Buxar. This case is pending for appearnace before CJM Buxar."

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of theft of electricity for running his Mill and certain amount of penalty has also been imposed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3043 of 2015 dt.23-04-2019 2/2

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf opposite party no. 2 in which at paragraph no. 8 (iii) it has been stated that there has been Videography with regard to the action taken.

5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid counter affidavit in which with reply to the said paragraph there is no denial and the only statement is that the equipment for running the Mill has not been seized and only PVC wire has been seized. The Court finding that there was non rebuttal of the claim of the opposite party no. 2 that there was Videography of the entire episode asked learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner was prepared for the consequences of the Court getting a report after viewing of the Videography, the petitioner was not agreeable to the same.

6. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the allegations made in the FIR of Murar PS Case No. 36 of 2014 cannot, at this stage, be said to be false, requiring interference by this Court under its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR U T