Rajpal Singh v. Advocate

The learned counsel for the Applicant asserts that a representation dated 07.12.2019 was submitted to the Executive Engineer, protesting the disconnection. It is further submitted that the Applicant thereafter filed an RTI application dated 06.01.2020 seeking information regarding the said inspection, and received a reply dated 24.01.2020. It is contended that only through this RTI response did the Applicant come to know of the inspection report and the Executive Engineer’s letter dated 10.12.2019, which demanded a sum of ₹69,798 as a precondition for initiating compounding.

5. It is alleged that instead of resolving the issue administratively, the second Respondent lodged an FIR against the Applicant, culminating in the filing of the charge sheet dated 26.12.2019.

6. It is argued that the charge sheet was submitted in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind, and that the learned trial court, while passing the summoning order dated 06.07.2021, failed to examine the veracity or sufficiency of the material presented. Criminal Misc. Application No.1927of 2021, Rajpal SinghVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. The learned Counsel for the Applicant maintains that the inspection was illegal, motivated, and violated procedural safeguards. It is urged that no notice was issued inspection, and the absence of contemporaneous documentation or independent witnesses casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s version. It is further submitted that the proceedings were initiated in retaliation for the complaint made by the Applicant on the C.M. Helpline, and therefore, amount to a misuse of the criminal law machinery.

8. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submits that the Criminal MiscellaneousApplication under Section 482 CrPC is liable to be dismissed as it seeks to question factual aspects outside the limited scope of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction. It is submitted that the inspection was carried out by a duly constituted team of public officials and was neither clandestine nor arbitrary.

9. The State asserts that the Applicant was found indulging in electricity theft by unauthorized means, and the charge sheet was submitted after recovery of credible material. The complaint was registered only after following due process, and statements of material witnesses, including Akshay Kumar Singh (Junior Engineer), Shiv Kumar, Shilpi Saini, and Surendra Singh Samant, were recorded under Section 161 CrPC, all of whom supported the prosecution’s case.

10. It is further submitted that the Applicant’s plea that he was not present during the inspection is a matter of defence and cannot be accepted at face value, particularly in the absence of any documentary evidence affirming such absence. The mere fact that the inspection occurred in his absence does not invalidate the action, especially when supported by contemporaneous documents and witness statements. Criminal Misc. Application No.1927of 2021, Rajpal SinghVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 3 Ashish Naithani J.

11. The State also contends that the representation made by the Applicant post-FIR has no bearing on the legality the case. The departmental communication dated

10.12.2019 called upon the applicant to deposit the amount assessed, and the filing of the charge sheet was in accordance with the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Any recorded cogent material has not substantiated the allegations of mala fide, bias, or vendetta.

12. The learned State Counsel submits that the charge sheet discloses prima facie material sufficient to proceed to trial, and that the summoning order was passed after due application of mind by the learned Magistrate. It is contended that the Applicant cannot seek to conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application, it is urged, is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

13. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

14. The scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC is well-settled. The inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and with caution, only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, carves out illustrative categories where quashing of proceedings may be warranted. However, the power is not to be invoked where the allegations, on their face, disclose a cognizable offence and require adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction.

15. In the present case, the charge sheet has been filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which criminalizes dishonest abstraction or unauthorised use of electrical energy. It is the case of the prosecution that during the inspection conducted on 03.12.2019, the applicant was Criminal Misc. Application No.1927of 2021, Rajpal SinghVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 4 Ashish Naithani J. found indulging in electricity theft by direct tapping through an illegal connection. The inspection report forms the foundational document, and statements of multiple witnesses, including departmental officials, corroborate the State’s narrative.

16. The primary contention of the Applicant is that the inspection was conducted in his absence and without any independent witness, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. However, the Electricity Act, 2003 does not per se mandate the presence of the consumer or independent witnesses as a condition precedent for initiating prosecution under Section 135, although their presence may enhance evidentiary value. In the present case, the State has relied upon the inspection team’s official status and contemporaneous documentation as sufficient compliance with legal formalities.

17. The Applicant’s further claim that he became a target for criminal proceedings due to a prior complaint made to the C.M. Helpline is premised on assumption and lacks substantive proof. Allegations of mala fide require a high threshold of material particulars and cannot be inferred solely based on chronology or strained inferences. In Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka v. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 478, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that vague or bald allegations of mala fide are not sufficient to vitiate criminal proceedings.

18. Regarding the Applicant’s contention that the inspection report and demand letter dated 10.12.2019 were not communicated to him and were obtained only through RTI, this does not render the case illegal. The material collected during the investigation, including the statements under Section 161 CrPC, forms the basis of the charge sheet. Whether such material is reliable or admissible is not within the scope of examination under Section 482 CrPC. The Applicant is Criminal Misc. Application No.1927of 2021, Rajpal SinghVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 5 Ashish Naithani J. free to challenge the evidence, including alleged procedural lapses, during trial.

19. This Court also finds no infirmity in the summoning order dated 06.07.2021. The learned court below, upon perusal of the charge sheet, has taken cognizance and summoned the Applicant. At this stage, the Magistrate is only required to examine whether there exists sufficient ground for proceeding under Section 204 CrPC. A detailed assessment of the sufficiency or reliability of evidence is neither contemplated nor required. The impugned order, though brief, reflects the satisfaction of the Magistrate and therefore legally sustainable.

20. The Applicant’s prayer for quashing of proceedings is essentially premised on disputed questions of fact, including denial of presence at the site and attribution of motive to departmental officers. These issues are best adjudication before the trial court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, cannot convert itself into a fact-finding forum or conduct a roving inquiry into the probative value of the State’s case. ORDER In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet dated

26.12.2019 filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, the cognizance and summoning order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, and the consequential proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2021 titled “State v. Rajpal” do not suffer from any patent illegality, procedural impropriety, or abuse of process so as to warrant interference under Section 482 CrPC. Criminal Misc. Application No.1927of 2021, Rajpal SinghVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 6 Ashish Naithani J. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1927 of 2021 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Dt: 06.06.2025 SB ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Criminal Misc. Application No.1927of 2021, Rajpal SinghVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 7 Ashish Naithani J.