Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DAILYLAW 2102 (PAT)

ANJANI KUMAR SAXENA v. The State of Bihar AND ANR

CR. MISC./12407/2019 · 2026-08-18

Chandra Shekhar Jha

body2019

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12407 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-420 Year-2012 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Anjani Kumar Saxena s/o Late Gaya Prasad Saxena Mohalla-Jyoti Tower, Dak Bunglow Road, P.S-Gandhi Maidan, Distt.-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidut Bhawan, Bailey Road, District-Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-08-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 19-09-2018 as passed by learned Special Judge, P.E.S.U. Area Patna, in Special Case No-324/2012, arising out of Gandhi Maidan P.S. case No 420/2012, through which prayer of the petitioner for discharge under section 239 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. As per prosecution case, on 21.12.2012, Arvind Kumar, Assistant Electrical Engineer lodged a complaint alleging that during a raid at Shop No. 2, Jyoti Tower, belonging to petitioner, where electricity was being illegally Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12407 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 2/4 consumed, despite its disconnection on 08.12.2012 for non- payment of dues. The alleged act was treated as theft of electricity under Section 135(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, causing an alleged total loss of Rs. 2,96,844/-, including previous dues of Rs. 2,74,115.49/- and theft-related loss of Rs. 22,729/-. 4. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint a Gandhi Maidan P.S. case No 420 of 2012 was registered against the petitioner under section 135/135(a) of Electricity Act, whereafter, charge sheet No-52 of 2013 dated 28/02/2013 was submitted against petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 135/135 1(a) of the Electricity Act, and subsequently the cognizance was taken by learned Jurisdictional Magistrate for the aforesaid offence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after lodging the FIR, petitioner deposited Rs. 2,74,115/- as outstanding due with the Electricity Department under protest and raised the issue that in fact premises, in issue, was under use of his tenant and he was not liable to pay. It is submitted that one Eviction Suit No.48 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12407 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 3/4 of 2013 was also filed against the tenant. It is also submitted that the Electricity Department accepted the plea of this petitioner and held that the electricity, in actual, was consumed by the tenant of the petition. Being aggrieved with, the tenant of the petitioner reached this Court invoking its Writ Jurisdiction where his prayer was accepted and electric meter was directed to be installed. It is further submitted that being aggrieved with this petitioner filed a writ petition disputing the status of his tenant which virtually accepted as owner by this Court. 6. With all such aforesaid development, petitioner preferred a petition for discharge u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. which was rejected through impugned order. 7. It is a settled principle of law that even “ grave suspicion” is sufficient to frame charges in criminal proceedings, and at the stage of framing charges probative value of materials, available on record, cannot be appreciated to the extent, which may culminate either with conviction or acquittal. 8. The issues which appears disputed by the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12407 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 4/4 petitioner regarding consumption of electricity, whether by himself or by his tenant is a factual aspect, which can be ascertained during the trial only. 9. In view of aforesaid the present petition appears devoid of any merit and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 10. Trial Court Records, if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment. Sudha/- (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.08.2026. Transmission Date 19.08.2026.