IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Writ Petition No. 287 of 2008 Liyakat S/o Sri Hamid R/o Village Sultanpur P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar. [ . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through S.S.P. Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2. Station House Officer P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar. 3. Rakesh Kumar, Sub Divisional Officer Electricity Department Laksar, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.C. Pujari, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought, quashing of the first information report dated 10.04.2008, relating to Crime No. 92 of 2008, relating to offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, lodged at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Annexure 2 to the writ petition, which is copy of the bill of electricity connection of the petitioner accompanied with receipt dated 27.02.2008, relating to the payment of the bill to the Uttaranchal Power Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of this Court to Annexure S.A. 1 filed with the supplementary affidavit and it is argued that the petitioner being farmer has to pay the electric charges only at the rate of Rs. 30/- per horsepower, and he can run his cane crusher etc. with the connection provided to him to run the tubewell. On its basis it is submitted that there is no need for the petitioner to commit theft of the electricity. 4) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate and after going through contents of the first information report, we are not inclined to interfere with the investigation, in the matter. 5) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine with the observation that if the petitioner Liyakat is arrested or surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of, without unreasonable delay. (Stay Application No. 2074 of 2008 also stands dismissed, accordingly). (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 24.04.2008 24.04.2008 H.Negi