Gangasaran v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And

these grounds learned counsel for the applicant prays for quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings arising out of it.

3. During the course of hearing it is not disputed by the learned counsel that the FIR was registered against the applicant in the year 2021, and the 2 A482 No. 8292 of 2025 applicant is yet to appear before the learned trial Court, despite issuance of various non-bailable warrants. However, according to the learned counsel, the pending proceedings were not in the knowledge of the applicant, therefore, he neither associated with the police during investigation nor appeared before the learned trial court pursuant to the cognizance order dated 10.05.2024.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and considering the submissions, this Court finds that admittedly the applicant had sought information from the Electricity Department in respect of subject Electricity Connection No. 761630393110 and as per reply dated 8th July 2021 (Annexure No. 6) the connection is in the name of applicant since 1st April 2011. It also discloses the outstanding electricity charges pending against the applicant.

5. Notably, the First Information Report is of June 2021, and the applicant is already communicating with the Electricity Department, therefore, the stand of the applicant that he was not aware of the proceedings, is not worth acceptance. Even otherwise, the grounds raised to seek quashing of the impugned chargesheet and the proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 1065 of 2021 under Sections 138(1)(B) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, P.S. Anti Power Theft, District Ambedkar Nagar can be raised by the applicant before the trial court at the stage of consideration of final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC.

6. Here, it will be useful to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors. reported in Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a party can avail alternative remedy according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, in that eventuality the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. The relevant observations read as under : "13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It has been held by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] that Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (which corresponds to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) saves the inherent power of the High 3 A482 No. 8292 of 2025 Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and such inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code and therefore where the Magistrate has not applied his mind under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to the merits of the reports and passed order, the High Court ought not to consider a request for quashing the proceedings. In the case of R.P. Kapur (supra) on 10.12.1958, M.L. Sethi lodged a First Information Report against R.P. Kapur and alleged that he and his mother-in- law had committed offences under Sections 420-109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. R.P. Kapur moved the Punjab High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the First Information Report. When the petition of R.P. Kapur was pending in the High Court, the police report was submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the High Court held that no case had been made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and dismissed the petition. R. P. Kapur carried an appeal by way of Special Leave to this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal for inter alia the following reasons: " In the present case the magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceedings is not at the present stage covered by any specific provision of the Code. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage?" As we have found in the present case that learned Magistrate had not applied his mind to the merits of the reports filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., we are of the considered opinion that the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., was at an interlocutory stage and was not warranted in the facts of this case."

7. In view of the above background of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court without meaning any expression of opinion on the merit of this case, does not find it to be a fit case for 4 A482 No. 8292 of 2025 exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The application fails and is dismissed. October 8, 2025 Anurag (Manoj Bajaj,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

these grounds learned counsel for the applicant prays for quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings arising out of it.

3. During the course of hearing it is not disputed by the learned counsel that the FIR was registered against the applicant in the year 2021, and the 2 A482 No. 8292 of 2025 applicant is yet to appear before the learned trial Court, despite issuance of various non-bailable warrants. However, according to the learned counsel, the pending proceedings were not in the knowledge of the applicant, therefore, he neither associated with the police during investigation nor appeared before the learned trial court pursuant to the cognizance order dated 10.05.2024.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and considering the submissions, this Court finds that admittedly the applicant had sought information from the Electricity Department in respect of subject Electricity Connection No. 761630393110 and as per reply dated 8th July 2021 (Annexure No. 6) the connection is in the name of applicant since 1st April 2011. It also discloses the outstanding electricity charges pending against the applicant.

5. Notably, the First Information Report is of June 2021, and the applicant is already communicating with the Electricity Department, therefore, the stand of the applicant that he was not aware of the proceedings, is not worth acceptance. Even otherwise, the grounds raised to seek quashing of the impugned chargesheet and the proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 1065 of 2021 under Sections 138(1)(B) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, P.S. Anti Power Theft, District Ambedkar Nagar can be raised by the applicant before the trial court at the stage of consideration of final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC.

6. Here, it will be useful to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors. reported in Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a party can avail alternative remedy according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, in that eventuality the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. The relevant observations read as under : "13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It has been held by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] that Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (which corresponds to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) saves the inherent power of the High 3 A482 No. 8292 of 2025 Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and such inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code and therefore where the Magistrate has not applied his mind under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to the merits of the reports and passed order, the High Court ought not to consider a request for quashing the proceedings. In the case of R.P. Kapur (supra) on 10.12.1958, M.L. Sethi lodged a First Information Report against R.P. Kapur and alleged that he and his mother-in- law had committed offences under Sections 420-109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. R.P. Kapur moved the Punjab High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the First Information Report. When the petition of R.P. Kapur was pending in the High Court, the police report was submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the High Court held that no case had been made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and dismissed the petition. R. P. Kapur carried an appeal by way of Special Leave to this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal for inter alia the following reasons: " In the present case the magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceedings is not at the present stage covered by any specific provision of the Code. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage?" As we have found in the present case that learned Magistrate had not applied his mind to the merits of the reports filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., we are of the considered opinion that the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., was at an interlocutory stage and was not warranted in the facts of this case."

7. In view of the above background of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court without meaning any expression of opinion on the merit of this case, does not find it to be a fit case for 4 A482 No. 8292 of 2025 exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The application fails and is dismissed. October 8, 2025 Anurag (Manoj Bajaj,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench