Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19484 of 2020 Applicant :- Virendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Mishra,Kamala Devi Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.K. Upadhayay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the Electricity Department, learned AGA and perused the record.
Present application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet No. 01/2020 dated 02.02.2020 arising out of FIR dated 30.11.2019 in Session Trial No. 122 of 2020, State Vs. Virendra Singh and another, under Sections 353, 332, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Section 135 Indian Electricity Act (Amended), 2003 & 3 (2)Va of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) amended Act, 2015 pending in the Court of the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.), Allahabad.
Argument of the counsel for the applicant is that no case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is made out as the applicant is not the owner of the premises in question. Said argument is liable to be rejected solely on the ground that Section 135 of the Electricity Act is not invokable only against the owner as the word used therein are "whosoever".
As regards the other argument of malicious prosecution raised by the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition alleging that the respondents are not issuing electricity connection and this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had issued directions on 5.8.2019 in Writ Petition (C) No. 24343 of 2019 for deciding the application of the daughter of the applicant for grant of electricity connection. I am afraid that no malafide is reflected only because the daughter of the applicant had approached this Court for enforcement of her statutory right.
The third argument of the counsel for the applicant is that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 4030 wherein he highlighted the following paragraph No. 12, which is quoted hereinbelow:
"12. From the evidence and other materials on record, there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Both the trial court and the High Court recorded the finding that the appellant-accused scolded the deceased Veer Singh that he belongs to “Khangar” Caste and how he could drive away the cattle of the person belonging to “Thakur” Caste and therefore, the appellant-accused has committed the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 3 of the said Act deals with the punishments for offences of atrocities committed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act reads as under:-
“Section 3 – Punishments for offences of atrocities –
(1) ………
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe, -
…….
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine”.
The object of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act is to provide for enhanced punishment with regard to the offences under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe."
Counsel for the applicant, thus, argues that no case is made out. I am afraid that the said argument is not available to the applicant for seeking quashing of the complaint. He may have good case on merits when the case is tried up before the Trial Court but the same does not fall within the limited scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
No good case is made out for interference. The application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 vinay