Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8992 (ALL)

RAJ SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 ANOTHER

NA528/39249/2026 · 2026-09-22

Gautam Chowdhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39249 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, Sri Kartikey Saran learned counsel for the Power Corporation, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant, with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case Crime No. 696 of 2021 (State Vs. Raj Singh) under Section 135 of Electricity Act Amendment, 2003 Police Station Anti Theft Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar pending before learned Additional District/Sessions Judge, Court No.4, District Muzaffar Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since offence in question is compoundable and the applicant is ready to settle the matter, therefore, some time may be granted to him for the said purpose and to approach the authority concerned under Section 152 of the Electricity Act. 4. Learned counsel for the Power Corporation as well as learned A.G.A. has no objection, if the offence is compounded under the relevant provision of the Electricity Act. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and keeping in view the willingness shown by learned counsel for applicant, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this application pending. 6. In view of above, it is provided that in case, the applicant moves an application for compounding under the relevant provisions of Electricity Act before the concerned authority within two weeks from today along with the certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks months from the date of production of same after Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pavan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kartikeya Saran Raj Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Another .....Opposite Party(s) hearing the parties concerned. 7. For a period of two months or till the disposal of said application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant in the aforesaid case. 8. In case of default on the part of applicant, interim protection granted to applicant shall automatically come to an end. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands finally disposed of. September 23, 2026 S.Ali NA528 No. 39249 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad