Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 111 (UTT)

Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-02-21

MANOJ K.TIWARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. According to the applicant, he is an employee serving on contract in Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘UPCL’) established by State of Uttarakhand under the Electricity Act. According to the applicant, his duty is to attend the feeders in electricity sub-station and also to record meter reading by visiting the premises of the consumers for ascertaining the power consumed by them. 3. An. F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant on 13.06.2013 by respondent no. 2, who is a journalist by profession. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that applicant visits his house for meter reading, although, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma alone is authorized for the purpose. It was further alleged that applicant has demanded money from the consumers by impersonating as employee of UPCL. It was further alleged that on 25.05.2013, applicant received Rs. 9,000/- from the wife of the complainant for installing new electricity meter. It was further alleged that on 12.06.2013 when a delegation of journalists met Sub Divisional Officer of UPCL, then, it was revealed that there is no departmental employee of UPCL with the name of Naresh Kumar. It was further alleged that in the night at about 02:00 a.m. while electricity was running in the line, applicant has stolen his electricity meter. After investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet dated 29.07.2013 under Sections 170, 420 and 379 of I.P.C. Learned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter on 16.09.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and concocted; the F.I.R. has been lodged to wreak vengeance, as during the visit of applicant and Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Technician Grade-I, UPCL, Sub Division Jaspur, to the house of respondent no. 2 on 11.06.2013, respondent no. 2 had demanded that his power consumption be shown less so that his financial liability be reduced, which led to exchange of hot words between them. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that respondent no. 2 has himself stated in the F.I.R. that Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma is the authorized person to take meter reading and Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma has made written complaint to the Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Distribution Sub Division Jaspur regarding the incident which occurred on 11.06.2013. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are absolutely incoherent and highly improbable. Brijesh Kumar Sharma is the authorized person to take meter reading and Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma has made written complaint to the Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Distribution Sub Division Jaspur regarding the incident which occurred on 11.06.2013. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are absolutely incoherent and highly improbable. He further submits that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that it has been filed with ulterior motive to harass and victimize the applicant for not reducing the electricity consumption charges payable by respondent no. 2. 7. The written complaint dated 11.06.2013 made by Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Technician Grade-I to the S.D.O. Electricity Distribution Sub Division, Jaspur is on record as Annexure-4 to the application, wherein Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma has reported that he along with the applicant had visited the house of respondent no. 2 on 11.06.2013 for meter reading; after recording the reading, respondent no. 2 was informed by Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma that his electricity consumption is 2300 units in the last six months valued at Rs. 7,200/- and his total bill would be Rs. 22,340/-; respondent no. 2 and his wife insisted that their bill be reduced to Rs. 2200/-; when Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma expressed his helplessness in the matter, then respondent no. 2 and his wife misbehaved and abused Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma and the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in counterblast to the aforesaid incident of 11.06.2013, which was duly reported by Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma to his superior officer, respondent no. 2 filed F.I.R. on 13.06.2013 under Sections 170, 420 and 379 I.P.C. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. lodged by the complainant is vexatious and has been filed against the applicant in order to wreak vengeance, as he had accompanied Mr. Brijesh Sharma to his house for meter reading on 11.06.2013. He refers to the F.I.R. lodged by Mr. Kamal Giri, where he has stated that, on 12.06.2013, a delegation of journalists had visited the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaspur for making inquiry regarding applicant, who told him that there is no Naresh Kumar serving in the department. This, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, is an admission regarding the incident which occurred on 11.06.2013 regarding which Mr. Kamal Giri, where he has stated that, on 12.06.2013, a delegation of journalists had visited the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaspur for making inquiry regarding applicant, who told him that there is no Naresh Kumar serving in the department. This, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, is an admission regarding the incident which occurred on 11.06.2013 regarding which Mr. Brijesh Sharma, regular Technician Grade-I of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., already had complained to the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaspur on 11.06.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that inquiry, if any, made by the complainant from the Sub Divisional Officer was regarding Mr. Naresh Kumar; while name of the applicant is Mr. Naresh Chandra, which might be the reason for the information which the Sub Divisional Officer allegedly gave to the complainant. He further submits that offence punishable under Section 170 I.P.C. is not made out against the applicant, as applicant is covered by Section 21 (Twelfth) of I.P.C., which is extracted hereunder: “[Twelfth.-Every person- (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government; (b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).] Explanation 1.- Persons falling under any of the above descriptions are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not. Explanation 2.- Wherever the words “public servant” occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to be hold that situation.” 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the identity card issued by Electricity Distribution Division, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. to the applicant, which is on record as Annexure No. 2 to the C482 application. He has further referred to the Office Order dated 07.08.2010 issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Distribution Division, Jaspur whereby duties were assigned to the contract employees including the applicant. In the absence of any challenge to the validity of these documents, they can be looked at by this Court in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. In the absence of any challenge to the validity of these documents, they can be looked at by this Court in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 . 11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was an employee of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. on 13.06.2013 when respondent no. 2 lodged F.I.R. against him. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated by respondent no. 2 with a view to deter him from fearlessly discharging his official duties. Thus, according to him, pendency of criminal prosecution against the applicant amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, according to him, proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6121 of 2013 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur deserve to be quashed. He further submits that learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance. He further submits that cognizance order dated 16.09.2013 does not reflect application of mind by the learned Court below. 12. This Court finds substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are incoherent and highly improbable. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that applicant has taken money by impersonating as employee of UPCL. It is further alleged that applicant took Rs. 9,000/- from wife of respondent no. 2 for installing new electricity meter, however, the F.I.R. is silent as to whether the new electricity meter was installed or not. Then, it refers to the meeting of S.D.O. with the delegation of journalists on 12.06.2013 where S.D.O. disclosed that there is no employee with the name of Naresh Kumar. Immediately thereafter, it is alleged that when he heard some noise at about 02:00 a.m. in the night of 12/13.06.2013, he opened the door of his house and found that his electricity meter is missing. According to him, the electricity meter was removed from the line while electricity was running. It is common knowledge that power supply is bound to be interrupted while removing electricity meter from the line in which electricity is running. The F.I.R. is silent as to whether respondent no. 2 saw the applicant removing his electricity meter or taking away his electricity meter. 13. The respondent no. 2 in the F.I.R. has stated that Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma is the authorized person to record meter reading. Mr. The F.I.R. is silent as to whether respondent no. 2 saw the applicant removing his electricity meter or taking away his electricity meter. 13. The respondent no. 2 in the F.I.R. has stated that Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma is the authorized person to record meter reading. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma has made specific allegations against respondent no. 2 in his complaint dated 11.06.2013 and has also stated that applicant was also present there who was also abused by respondent no. 2 and his wife. 14. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against applicant are malicious and aimed at deterring the applicant, who was an employee of UPCL, which is a Government Corporation engaged in distribution of electricity, from faithfully discharging his official duties. Therefore, it is a fit case where jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. needs to be exercised in order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. 15. In such view of the matter, this criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6121 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, for offences punishable under Sections 170, 420 & 379 I.P.C. are hereby quashed.