Osiyar Singh @ Osihar Singh vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking

quashing of the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Pachrukhi P.S. Case No. 261/2013 by

which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan took cognizance of

the offences under Section 135 of the Bihar Electricity Act, 2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Mill in question is owned by his son Ravindra Singh and the

electricity connection is also in his name. So far as the present

petitioner is concerned, he happens to be the father of the said

Ravindra Singh and has been falsely implicated in the present

case only because of his relationship with the said Ravindra Singh.

Learned counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate has

vaguely stated that on perusal of the case diary sufficient

materials are found to proceed against the present petitioner.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite

Party No. 2 has opposed the application by filing a counter

affidavit stating therein that in fact the story that the petitioner

and his son has partitioned and this petitioner has no concern

with the Mill in question is only an afterthought.

Learned counsel submits that when the raiding party

reached the Flour Mill it was the petitioner who was found

present there running the Mill through bypassing the electric

Meter. The petitioner though was able to manage to escape from

the spot but because he was there the case was lodged only

against him as sole accused. The story of partition has been

attempted to be made out only later on.

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2,

therefore, submits that once the investigation has revealed

materials against this petitioner and the learned Magistrate,

having been convinced with the materials available for a prima facie

view, took cognizance and issued summons, this court need not

exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the present proceeding.

This court has perused the materials available on

record and considered the submissions made at the bar. In the

present case, the petitioner is the sole accused. The raiding party

has found the use of Meter in the premises of the Mill through

bypassing the Meter, and further evidences are there that this

petitioner was running the Mill who fled away on seeing the

raiding party. These are the factual aspects which this Court

cannot go into at this stage for quashing of the proceeding. The

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the case

comes within the legal parameters settled by the Hon''ble

Supreme Court from time to time. This Court is not inclined to

interfere with the order taking cognizance by going into the merit

of the allegation on the face of the materials available on the

record.

This application is dismissed, accordingly.