# Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 661 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-08-05 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 10076 of 2021 - **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47286 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 500-imputation made for public good would be a question of fact, can be decided during trial only and the benefit of the first exception to section 499 cannot be claimed at the stage of issuance of summons.(Para 1 to 18) B. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. At this stage, there is no requirement to enter into the detailed factual aspects or on the merits or demerits of the case.(Para 14) The application is dismissed ## Text 8 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 661 11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings related to Case Crime No. 0721 of 2020 (State Vs. Rohit Bhati and others) under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad are hereby quashed. 12. The application stands allowed accordingly. ---------- (2021)08ILR A661 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Application U/S 482. No. 10076 of 2021 Rajesh Singh ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri SunilKumar Srivastava Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A., sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari A. Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian Electricity Act, 1910-Section 138-B, 152-quashing of entire proceeding-applicant was not the owner of the premises in question and the same was already sold-the premises was mutated in favour of the purchaser-offence in question is compoundable and the applicant is ready to settle the matter, no useful purpose would be served by this application pending.(Para 1 to 9) The application is disposed of. (E-5) (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.2 Electricity Department and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.5.2016 along with entire proceedings in Case No.1460 of 2018 (State vs Rajesh Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.129 of 2016 under Section 138-B Indian Electricity Act, P.S. Naini District Allahabad and also quash the non bailable warrant dated 15.2.2021 which is pending in the court of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and peace loving and law abiding citizen and abusively trapped in this criminal case without taking information by the applicant or tenants of the aforesaid premises. The applicant has purchased the aforesaid premises on 1.7.2014 and thereafter he has sold the aforesaid premises to Jai Singh on 26.6.2015 by registered sale deed which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Karchhana in Bahi No.1 Jild No.4184 Page No.23 to 100 Sl.No.5372 on 26.6.2015. He further submits that by the order dated 16.9.2015 passed by the Tehsildar Karchhana, District Allahabad the aforesaid premises was mutated in favour of the purchaser. Learned counsel also submits that when the FIR was lodged against the applicant under Section 138-B Electricity Act, the applicant was not the owner of the premises in question and the same was already sold to one Jai Singh, therefore, the present case cannot be lodged against the applicant as he is not consuming 662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the electricity as alleged by the Electricity Department. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that since offence in question is compoundable and the applicant is ready to settle the matter, some time may be granted to him for the said purpose and to approach the authority concerned under Section 152 of the Electricity Act. 5. Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Electricity Department has no objection if the offence is compounded under Section 152 of the Electricity Act. Learned AGA who represents opposite party no.1 State of U.P. has also no objection. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and keeping in view the willingness shown by learned counsel for applicant, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this application pending. Hence, applicant is directed to move an application under the relevant provisions of Electricity Act before the concerned authority within one month from today. If such application along with certified copy of this order is moved by applicant, same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of same in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. 7. For a period of three months or till the disposal of said application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant in the aforesaid case. 8. In case of default on the part of applicant, interim protection granted to applicant shall automatically come to an end. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands finally disposed of. ---------- (2021)08ILR A662 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Application U/S 482. No. 10431 of 2021 Rajesh Churiwala ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Brijrndra Prasad Shukla Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. A. Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 500-imputation made for public good would be a question of fact, can be decided during trial only and the benefit of the first exception to section 499 cannot be claimed at the stage of issuance of summons.(Para 1 to 18) B. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. At this stage, there is no requirement to enter into the detailed factual aspects or on the merits or demerits of the case.(Para 14) The application is dismissed. (E-5) List of Cases cited: