Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6824 Reserved Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16541 of 2020 Applicant :- Thakur Deen Sagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the informant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under section 482 CrPC has been preferred for quashing of summoning order dated 19.03.2020 as well as entire proceedings arising out of charge-sheet dated 10.11.2019, case crime No. 496 of 2019, Special Case No. 443 of 2020 (State Vs Thakur Deen Sagar), under section 135 Electricity Act, PS Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, pending in the court of IVth Additional District Judge / Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was having a proper electricity connection in his residential premises and he was regularly paying electricity bills. It was stated that one Anil Kumar Sharma, who is Executive Engineer (Store) in the Electricity Department, was tenant in the premises of applicant and he has started using electricity by putting a cable from main line by saying that, being an officer of electricity department, he is authorized to consume electricity. In this connection, learned counsel has referred the reply submitted against assessment report, wherein the said Anil Kumar Sharma has made an endorsement that above said version of applicant is correct. It was submitted that applicant did not commit any theft of electricity and he has merely believed version of said Anil Kumar Sharma. It is further submitted that on the cognizance order passed on charge-sheet, there is no signature of Presiding officer. Further, the impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the details like case number, section, police station and name of accused. The impugned summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant and in fact if there is any liability that is on the part of the said Anil Kumar Sharma but he has not been charge-sheeted by the police. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the application and submitted that the applicant was fully aware that the theft of electricity was being committed in his premises and he is fully responsible for the same as the said premises belongs to the applicant. It was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicant and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused record. 6. In the first information report it was alleged that on 21.08.2019 the officials of Electricity department have conducted a checking at the residential premises of applicant and it was found that an electricity connection is approved in the said premises but besides that connection, electricity was being consumed by affixing two cables from the LT line illegally. It was also mentioned in the first information report that in the said premises, Anil Kumar Sharma, Executive Engineer is also residing on rent. Thus, it is not disputed that Anil Kumar Sharma, who is Executive Engineer in the same Electricity Department, was tenant in the premises of applicant. It was shown that applicant has submitted a reply to the Assessment report of Electricity department, mentioning that by way of putting cable from LT Line electricity was being consumed by said Anil Kumar Sharma, by saying that he, being an officer of electricity department, is authorized to consume electricity. In this connection, learned counsel has referred the reply dated 16.09.2019 submitted against assessment report, wherein the said Anil Kumar Sharma has made an endorsement that above said version of applicant is correct. Thus, it could not be said that the case of applicant is without any substance. It appears that during investigation said Anil Kumar Sharma was not examined by the Investigating officer. In view of these facts and circumstances the learned trial court must have considered role of said Anil Kumar Sharma before passing order on summoning. If police did not investigate that aspect of the matter, it was open to the Trial Court to make direction for further investigation. It appears that the impugned summoning order has been passed without perusal of record and without considering the role of said Anil Kumar Sharma. Thus, the impugned summoning order is not sustainable. 7. Even otherwise, it is apparent that impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling in the details like name of accused, section, case number etc. Thus impugned order was passed in a mechanical way without application of judicial mind. Such practice is continuously being deprecated by this Court but despite that summoning orders are being passed on printed proforma. Thus, on this count also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. In view of aforesaid, the impugned summoning order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court concerned to consider the matter and to pass an order on cognizance / summoning or to make direction of further investigation, as the case may be, in accordance with law. 9. The application under section 482 CrPC is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad