Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1486 (JHR)

Dharamshila Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-21

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Ms. Naina Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by learned A.J.C.-I, Special Court, Electricity at Ranchi in connection with Dhurwa (T) P.S. Case No. 22/2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 527/2014, whereby and where-under the learned court below has refused to give a direction to the opposite party no. 2 for compounding of the offence holding that the matter of compounding is to be determined by the Electricity Department itself. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially there was a demand of Rs. 3,59,355/- from the erstwhile owner of the property and infact the electricity connection was running in the name of the erstwhile owner even after the same was transferred to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of Rs. 1,22,000/- was the loss amount as suffered by the Electricity Department which has also been deposited by the petitioner apart from the amount of Rs. 40,000/- as compounding cost of the offence. It has therefore been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the entire amount including arrears of the loss caused to the Electricity Department has been deposited along with the compounding cost the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that compounding of offence does not have any concern with the arrears of the electricity dues. 4. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the fact with respect to the deposit of the entire amount as claimed by the petitioner and has further submitted that the Department does not have any objection if the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner is quashed. 5. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2014 with respect to the prayer made by the petitioner for compounding the offence. Since the petitioner in the present application had very fairly submitted that he wants to compound the offence for which as a bona fide gesture the petitioner has deposited apart from the electricity dues the loss caused to the Board as well as the compounding cost of Rs. 40,000/-. Since the petitioner in the present application had very fairly submitted that he wants to compound the offence for which as a bona fide gesture the petitioner has deposited apart from the electricity dues the loss caused to the Board as well as the compounding cost of Rs. 40,000/-. On 26.07.2017 on being called upon the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 had also agreed to the proposal of the petitioner and considering such circumstance the matter was ordered to be placed before the National Lok Adalat held on 12.08.2017. However, although learned counsel for the petitioner was present but since none had appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 the matter was ordered to be listed today. Since it has been submitted and accepted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the Board does not have any grievance against the petitioner since the electricity dues apart from the loss caused to the Board as well as the compounding cost of Rs. 40,000/- has already been deposited by the petitioner to the Board, continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner would be an act in futility. 6. In such view of the matter, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner in connection with Dhurwa (T) P.S. Case No. 22/2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 527/2014, for the offences under section 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 7. This application stands allowed.