[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Arvind Singh Albela @ Arvind Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.344 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-909 Year-2023 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Arvind Singh Albela @ Arvind Yadav Son of Late Ramashish singh @
Ramashish Yadav Village- Kluaachak, Panchayat- Mande Bigha, PS -Sikriya
OP Distt -Jahanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sri Pramod Kumar Nirala son of Sri Yadunandan Sharma village- Sighuar,
Po- Dengra, Dist- Gaya Sahayak Electric Engineer, Jehanabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Indradeo Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
4 16-07-2025
The instant revision is taken up for hearing on the
point of Admission.
2. Jehanabad P.S. Case No.909 of 2023, G.R.
No.7563/2023 was registered on 21.09.2023 against one Arbind
Yadav under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
3. On 20.09.2023 Assistant Electrical Engineer, South
Bihar Power Distribution Company, Jehanabad lodged a
complaint stating, inter-alia, that on 20.09.2023 he went to the
agricultural land of one Arvind Yadav son of late Ramashish
Yadav of village-Kaluachak, P.S.-Sikriya, District-Jehanabad to
work out a secret information of theft of electricity.
4. At the time of raid, he and other employees of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.344 of 2025(4) dt.16-07-2025
2/5
Department found that electricity was being consumed from the
low tension line running above the agricultural land by hooking
with the help of PVC Wire. He assessed that the Electricity
Development Corporation suffered loss of Rs.32,751/- beside
the amount of compounding. On the basis of the said complaint,
police registered Jehanabad P.S. Case No.909 of 2023 on
21.09.2023 against the said Arvind Yadav and on completion of
investigation he filed charge-sheet against the said Arvind
Yadav. The petitioner claiming himself to be Arvind Singh
Albela son of Ramashish Singh pleaded that he is not accused
Arvind Yadav and he was falsely implicated in the said case.
5. At the time of hearing, I have clearly asked the
learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner as to whether he
received any notice of the proceeding pending before the
learned Special Court under the Electricity Act and he replied
that he did not receive any notice. He came to know from co-
villagers that the instant case was instituted against him.
6. It is submitted by him that he never stays at
Jehanabad. However, Jehanabad is his ancestral house. He has
ancestral agricultural property at Jehanabad. The said lands are
cultivated by some other persons and he does not have any
knowledge about theft of electricity.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.344 of 2025(4) dt.16-07-2025
3/5
7. When he came to know that he was implicated in a
case under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, he filed an
application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the
S.H.O. and Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad as police did
not take any action, similar application was filed before the
Special Court under the Electricity Act.
8. The learned Special Court also did not take any
action and the petition is kept with the record.
9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant
revision.
10. Having heard the learned Advocate for the
petitioner, this Court finds that the instant petition is absolutely
misconceived. Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. speaks about police
officers power to investigate a cognizable case. Sub Section 3 of
Section 156(3) states :-
“Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may
order such an investigation as above-mentioned”
11. Conjoint reading of Section 154 and 156 of the
Cr.P.C. says that under Section 154 if some information of
cognizable case is made before the police officer of a police
station either orally or in-writing, such oral statement shall be
reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.344 of 2025(4) dt.16-07-2025
4/5
over to the informant; and every such information, whether
given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be
signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be
entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the
State Government may prescribe in his behalf.
12. Section 154 deals with lodging of FIR of a
cognizable offence by the police. Section 156 gives power to the
police officer to investigate a cognizable offence. There may be
some occasion where even after submission of complaint
disclosing cognizable offence police does not registered FIR and
keeps them unattended.
13. Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. comes into action at
that stage when police fails to take any step in respect of a
complaint disclosing cognizable offence.
14. In such event, the aggrieved person will first take
recourse of Sub-Section (3) of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
sending the copy of the complaint to the higher authority of the
police department even then, if no FIR is lodged, the
complainant can file a complaint under Section 190 of the
Cr.P.C. and in appropriate case such complaint may be sent to
the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional police station with a
direction to lodge FIR on the basis of the said complaint and to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.344 of 2025(4) dt.16-07-2025
5/5
start investigation.
15. In the instant case, the petitioner requested the
police officer as well as the Court under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. to make an enquiry as to whether he is the real accused
or not. Such prayer is untenable under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. and utterly misconceived. If the petitioner is not the
accused, he can file appropriate application before the Trial
Court challenging his identity. Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is
no manner of application under the facts and circumstances of
this case.
16. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any
merit in the instant revision. Accordingly, the instant revision is
summarily dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
mdrashid/-
U T
[ad_2]
Source link