Ashish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15442 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -47 Year- 2012 Thana -LALGANJ District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Ashish Kumar S/O Manoj Kumar Sahni R/O Village-Medhurapur, P.S.- Lalganj, Distt.-Vaishali Minor Through His Parenet Manoj Kumar Sahni S/O Sri Mewalal Sahni R/O Village-Medhurapur, P.S.-Lalganj, Distt.- Vaishali Undr The Gurardiaship Of Manoj Kumar Sani, S/O Mewa Al Sahni .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Bihar State Pwoer (Holding) Company Through Its Managins Director Vidyat Bhawan Beali Road, Patna

3. Ankit Kumar, S/O Sri Bindo Kumar Singh R/O Village-Usmanchak, P.S.-Masaurhi, Distt.-Patna At Present Posted As Assistant Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Lalganj .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Smt. Sangita Sharma (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 30-07-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

This is a petition for quashing the first information report of Lalganj P.S. Case No. 47 of 2012 and it's entire investigation as the petitioner is minor aged four years and has been implicated for offences under Sections 379 of the Penal Code and 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that he is seeking for quashing the first information report on the ground that the petitioner is a minor aged four years and comes under the exception of Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the point taken by the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15442 of 2013 (3) dt.30-07-2015 learned counsel for the petitioner is question of fact which can only be decided during the investigation and it is not proper at this stage to interfere with the investigation and the first information report is not only against this petitioner, alone, but against four more persons, named in the first information report regarding the theft of energy.

Hence, having regard to the fact, I do not find any merit in this petition for quashing the first information report.

This petition is rejected.

(Gopal Prasad, J) SA/- U √ T √