Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19612 of 2018 Applicant :- Sumit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Shankar Tripathi,Rajeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandan Agarwal
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Sri Arvind Kumar, Advocate has filed a Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant today after seeking no objection from Sri Rajeev Kumar Pandey, the same is taken on record.
Heard Sri H.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shirish Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. along with Sri Avaneesh Shukla appearing for the State.
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings of Sessions Trial No.44 of 2012, State Vs. Sumit (arising out of Case Crime no.1234 of 2011), under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Ghaziabad.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused/ applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime with the allegations that the applicant along with co-accused were utilizing a load secretly in 8 - 10 houses by joining a black coloured cable from the Low Tension ABC Box. In short, they stand charged with theft of electricity by illegal extraction through a technical contrivance to commit the offence. It is urged that the aforesaid allegation is absolutely motivated and incredible inasmuch as, the applicant is Sumit son of Sri Rishipal, resident of House No. B-6, Durga Mandir Radha Vihar, Mandoli, North East Delhi, whereas the name of the accused mentioned by the prosecution is Sumit son of Shambhu, resident of Budh Bazar, Rahul Garden, Beheta Hazipur, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad. It is, therefore, submitted the applicant is no way even remotely connected to the house, where theft of electricity is alleged to have been committed as asserted in paragraph 12 of the affidavit.
Sri Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that the applicant is the one, who has been found involved in the crime and by disputing his parentage and residence, the applicant is setting up a defence to evade the consequences of his offence and that too in proceedings where these questions cannot be gone into.
The Court has considered the matter. The fact whether the applicant is Sumit son of Sri Rishipal or Sumit son of Sri Shambhu and whether his residence is in Delhi or in Ghaziabad, are all highly disputed questions, that would involve sifting of evidence and that is beyond the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the applicant. This application false is dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Anoop/ Shahroz