1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Rajeev Anand vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|08 November, 2017
Court No. - 21
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24179 of 2017 Petitioner :- Rajeev Anand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishnaji Khare,Piyush Kishore Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Hon'ble Akhilesh Chandra Sharma,J.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.S. Umrao for the Power Corporation and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 29.10.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 318 of 2017 under Section 353 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, district Allahabad and also for a direction to the opposite parties not to arrest him in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Section 353 I.P.C. can be said to be made out inasmuch as the application made by the tenant for grant of a separate electricity connection was rejected.
The argument is not accepted inasmuch as the rejection order was challenged by the tenant of the petitioner by filing writ petition no. 46852 of 2017 where a Division Bench vide order dated 10.10.2017 observed that refusal of electricity connection on vague ground that some legal matters are pending does not stand the test and Sub Divisional Officer, Rambagh was required to file his personal affidavit giving reasons why electricity connection has not been released to the tenant. It appears that thereafter, when the respondent no. 4 and others went to affix the meter in the premises of the tenant of the petitioner, the same was resisted by the petitioner and as a consequence whereof, the Junior Engineer lodged the impugned first information report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner never offered any physical resistance as stated in the impugned first information report but he simply insisted that unless a valid connection is released in favour of the tenant or the Court passes any order since his application already stands rejected, the meter cannot be affixed.
We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner in his capacity as landlord has no right to interfere with the tenant in matter of obtaining separate electricity connection in his name in the rented premises.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken before us that the petitioner will not interfere with the affixing of the meter and electricity connection in favour of the tenant.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the undertaking given before us, we dispose of the writ petition by providing that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime number till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.11.2017/nd
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Krishna Murari
  • Krishnaji Khare Piyush Kishore Srivastava