The judgment establishes the principle that the police have no jurisdiction to institute an FIR and investigate non-cognizable offences without the order of a Magistrate, and emphasizes the importance of statutory provisions in determining the legality of police actions.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the first information report (for short ‘FIR’) of Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 256 of 2018 registered under Sections 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are believed to be true, no case for investigation by the police is made out. He has submitted that on the admitted facts of the case, the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 279 of the IPC are not attracted. Apart from Section 279 of the IPC, Section 427 of the IPC and Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are non-cognizable offences. In view of the statutory bar provided under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), the police have no authority to institute an FIR and investigate into the same when the offences alleged are non-cognizable.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that it is true that the offences punishable under Section 427 of the IPC and Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are non-cognizable, but the offence under Section 279 of the IPC is a cognizable one. In case, the allegations made in the FIR constitute both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the police would have jurisdiction to institute an FIR and investigate into the same. He has further contended that the allegations made in the FIR would certainly attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 has supported the contentions advanced on behalf of the State. He has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR, it would be evident that on 28.07.2018, in the night, at about 02.35 a.m., the truck belonging to the petitioner was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it had badly damaged 11KV electric pole, as a result of which the supply of power was interrupted in the entire Gaurichak village for about 18 hours. He has contended that since the investigation is going on, it would not be proper for this Court to interdict the FIR on the basis of defence taken by the petitioner at this stage.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the allegations made in the FIR of Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 256 of 2018, as contained in Annexure-1 to this application.

7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be proper to look into the allegations made in the FIR.

8. The FIR has been instituted on the basis of the written report submitted by one Pradeep Kumar Rai, a Junior Electrical Engineer, Sampatchak, Patna wherein he has stated that on 28.07.2018, in the night, at about 02.35 am, a truck bearing registration no. BR11 GB-0329 collided with 11KV electric pole near Upgraded Middle School, Ajimchak as a result of which power supply in the Gaurichak village was interrupted for nearly 18 hours depriving 1500 consumers from consumption of Electricity. The said act of the driver of the vehicle has resulted into a loss of Rs. 71,000/- to the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.

9. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the informant Pradeep Kumar Rai alleged that an FIR under Section 135 and other relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 be registered against the owner of the truck in question.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 256 of 2018 was registered on 28.07.2018 under Sections 279 and 427 of the IPC and Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

11. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations made in the FIR would not attract the ingredients