Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3022 (ALL)

Pyarey Lal Gupta v. State of U. P. & 4 Others

2013-12-12

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, SANJAY MISRA

body2013
Sanjay Misra, J. In this Public Interest Litigation, which has been filed by a retired Assistant Engineer of the Second respondent the relief which has been sought is a mandamus requiring the police authorities to lodge an FIR against respondent nos. 2 to 5 in respect of an order dated 07.01.2009 that was passed by the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 1, Saharanpur permitting the withdrawal of the prosecution. The second respondent is the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Lucknow; the third respondent is its Divisional Engineer; the Fourth respondent is the Special/Additional Sessions Judge while the Fifth respondent is an officer of the second respondent. 2. An FIR was registered against the Fifth respondent in regard to an incident involving a theft which took place at Village Suhagani which comes within the Electricity Sub Division Talheri, District Saharanpur on 8.3.2006. The FIR was lodged under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act read with Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC by a Junior Engineer (Vigilance). A chargesheet was submitted against the Fifth respondent under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act read with Sections 420 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The Fifth respondent filed proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which an order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this court on 23.11.2006 staying further proceedings in Case no. 728 of 2006 pending before the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Saharanpur. 3. The Divisional Engineer of the second respondent by an office memorandum dated 2.1.2009 opined upon examination of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case that there was no cogent or reliable evidence against the Fifth respondent and hence he recommended that the prosecution should be withdrawn by making an application to the competent court. Accordingly, an application was made before the learned Trial Judge which was allowed on 7.1.2009. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that once further proceedings in the criminal case had been stayed by this court on 23.11.2006, the Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to allow the prosecution to be withdrawn. 5. This public interest litigation has been filed on 10.12.2013 nearly four years after the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 7.1.2009 permitting withdrawal. 6. We have perused the record and found that the application for withdrawal was preceded by a consideration of the available material against the Fifth respondent. 5. This public interest litigation has been filed on 10.12.2013 nearly four years after the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 7.1.2009 permitting withdrawal. 6. We have perused the record and found that the application for withdrawal was preceded by a consideration of the available material against the Fifth respondent. The application for withdrawal was filed after it was found that there was no evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. The petition under Section 482 of the CrPC which has been filed by the Fifth respondent (Criminal Misc. Application No. 15019 of 2006) is now rendered infructuous. Undoubtedly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have placed the record before the learned Single Judge in the proceeding under Section 482 before allowing the application for withdrawal. 7. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the public interest litigation. The application for withdrawal was made upon a consideration of the fact that no material was available against the Fifth respondent in respect of the allegation that he was involved in an offence under Section 135(2) of the Electricity Act. 8. After a lapse of nearly four years from the date of the order permitting withdrawal, no useful purpose will be served in pursuing these proceedings. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this public interest litigation. 9. A copy of this order shall be placed on record of Criminal Misc. Application No. 15019 of 2006 which has been rendered infructuous for the aforesaid reasons. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________