Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43002/2013dismissed

Dr. Irshad Ahmad Khan @ Irsad Khan v. The State Of Bihar

2016-05-03Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43002 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -232 Year- 2013 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. Dr. Irshad Ahmad Khan @ Irsad Khan Son Of Late Mujibul Hassan Resident Of Jail Chowk, N.H. 31, Police Station - K. Hat, District- Purnia .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dasrath Mehta, APP For NBPDCL : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-05-2016 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application has been filed seeking quashing of the First Information Report of K. Hat Police Station Case No. 232 of 2013, registered for the commission of offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act From the First Information Report, it appears that in course of raid conducted by the Officials of North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited in the premises of the petitioner, commission of theft of electricity was detected.

On perusal of the written report, submitted by

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43002 of 2013 (5) dt.03-05-2016 2/2 the informant, which is the basis for registration of the First Information Report, I find that an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is cognizable, is made out.

The First Information Report, in such circumstance, cannot be quashed, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application is accordingly dismissed.

However, it goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise such plea, as has been raised in the present application, at the appropriate stage of taking of cognizance or framing of charge or any subsequent stage, as may be permissible under law. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √