- (1.) THIS petition, under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 02.08.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Faizabad summoning the petitioner under Section 135 of Electricity Act and proceedings of Criminal Case No.16 of 2005 arising out of the aforesaid order..
(2.) HEARD Sri Dhananjai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 though the counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. Rejoinder affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
(3.) BRIEF facts for deciding this petition are that when a raiding team of the electricity department visited at private tube well having Electricity Connection No.5304/298800, it was found that inspite of disconnection of electricity for non payment of arrears of Rs.67,479/ -, the petitioner was running a 3 HP electricity motor by using four core cable by illegally connecting it with the power supply line. The raiding team after disconnecting the electricity seized the cable and electricity motor. When the lineman Sri Sarvadin and one private labour Sri Sheo Nath came out from the village along with cable and electricity motor, the son of petitioner, namely, Rinku along with two or three other persons assaulted Sri Sarvadin and Sri Sheo Nath and run way from the spot along with cable and electricity motor. In pursuance thereof, the criminal complaint has been filed by the Electricity Department against the petitioner and on the said complaint, learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Faizabad after taking cognizance summoned the petitioner vide order dated 02.08.2005. Aggrieved by the said summoning order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case neither any seizure report has been produced by the authorities nor any item has been seized on the spot. It has also been submitted that the electricity motor cannot be carried out from the spot considering its weight by two persons as alleged in the FIR and, therefore, the story of assault and snatching the seized item is not acceptable. It has also been submitted that earlier to this incident, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2 and, therefore, only to harass the petitioner, the present complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2. It has also been submitted by learned counsel that on the basis of aforesaid grounds, the entire proceedings of criminal complaint is liable to be quashed.;