I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI

6^th June, 2025 CRI MI NAL MI SCELLANEOUS APPLI CATI ON NO. 1927 of 2021 Rajpal Singh …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another …Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. G.D Joshi, Advocate.

Counsel for the State : Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the Applicant for quashing the charge sheet dated 26.12.2019, submitted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, the summoning order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, and the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom in Special Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2021 titled “State v. Rajpal.”

2. The Applicant claims to be an agriculturist and permanent resident of Village Dharmupur, District Haridwar, and alleges that he was falsely implicated in the present matter as a consequence of a prior complaint made by him against a lineman of the Power Corporation. It is stated that the Applicant owns agricultural land on both sides of a local road and uses a private tubewell connection for irrigation. When the local lineman allegedly attempted to stop the water supply and demanded a bribe, the applicant filed an online complaint on 01.11.2019 on the C.M. Helpline. The same was followed by a departmental letter dated 05.11.2019 from the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Executive Engineer, requesting that the grievance be addressed and such incidents not recur.

3. It is contended on behalf of the Applicant, by his learned Counsel, that subsequent to the said complaint, employees of the Corporation, harbouring resentment against the Applicant, orchestrated an inspection of his premises on 03.12.2019 in his absence, during which the electricity connection was disconnected and the wire was allegedly seized. It is submitted that the Applicant was not present at the premises at the time, and that no independent witness, photographic, or videographic evidence of the alleged inspection was recorded.

4. The learned counsel for the Applicant asserts that a representation dated 07.12.2019 was submitted to the Executive Engineer, protesting the disconnection. It is further submitted that the Applicant thereafter filed an RTI application dated 06.01.2020 seeking information regarding the said inspection, and received a reply dated 24.01.2020. It is contended that only through this RTI response did the Applicant come to know of the inspection report and the Executive Engineer’s letter dated 10.12.2019, which demanded a sum of ₹69,798 as a precondition for initiating compounding. 5. It is alleged that instead of resolving the issue administratively, the second Respondent lodged an FIR against the Applicant, culminating in the filing of the charge sheet dated 26.12.2019.

6. It is argued that the charge sheet was submitted in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind, and that the learned trial court, while passing the summoning order dated 06.07.2021, failed to examine the veracity or sufficiency of the material presented.

7. The learned Counsel for the Applicant maintains that the inspection was illegal, motivated, and violated procedural safeguards. It is urged that no notice was issued prior to the inspection, and that the absence of contemporaneous documentation or independent witnesses casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s version. It is further submitted that the proceedings were initiated in retaliation for the complaint made by the Applicant on the C.M. Helpline, and therefore, amount to a misuse of the criminal law machinery.

8. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submits that the Criminal MiscellaneousApplication under Section 482 CrPC is liable to be dismissed as it seeks to question factual aspects outside the limited scope of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction. It is submitted that the inspection was carried out by a duly constituted team of public