Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 425 (ALL)

Vinod Singh v. State Of U. P.

2020-02-07

PANKAJ MITHAL, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rajneesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and Sri Mahboob Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. An F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner on 19.11.2019 which has been registered as Case Crime No.0002 of 2019, under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act (Amendment), 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Police Station -Anti Power Theft, District- Fatehpur. 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition for the quashing of the aforesaid F.I.R. 4. The submission is that the aforesaid F.I.R. is false and in cases of theft of electricity registered under Section 135 of the Act, arrest of the accused is not necessary. It is a compoundable offence. 5. Section 135 of the Act defines the offence of theft of electricity and Section 151 of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the said Act except upon a complaint made by the appropriate Government or any of their officer authorized by them. At the same time Section 151 A of the Act provides for the power of the police to investigate and confers upon the police officer all the powers as are provided in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Section 151B of the Act further lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 or Section 150 of the Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable offences. 7. In view of the above provision of Section 151B of the Act, it is ample clear that the offence registered under Section 135 of the Act is a cognizable offence and at the same time is non-bailable. 8. Accordingly, the police have the power to investigate the offence in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is implicit that the police in investigating the matter also have the power to arrest the offender and that in case the accused is so arrested he has to seek bail from the court concerned. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. reveals commission of an offence under Section 135 of the Act which is a cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the F.I.R. ought to be quashed in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. 10. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. reveals commission of an offence under Section 135 of the Act which is a cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the F.I.R. ought to be quashed in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. 10. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of allegations in the F.I.R. we are of the opinion that it may not be necessary to arrest the petitioner for the purposes of completion of investigation provided he cooperates. 11. Accordingly, we dispose of the petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. dated 19.11.2019, till the submission of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. provided he cooperates and participates in the investigation which is expected to be completed most expeditiously.