IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44557 of 2008 1) Surendra Roy, son of yogi Roy, 2) Ramsakha Sahani, son of Uttimlal Sahni, Both of village Kheda, PS Khanpur, Dist. Samastipur – Petitioners Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Praveen Kumar, Incharge Electric Supply Branch, Mathurapur, village Pachpaika, PS Ujjiarpur, Dist. Samastipur – Opp. Parties. 2 29.7.2011 HeardMr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.K.Chaurasia, A.P.P. for the State This application has been filed for quashing the orders, dated 28.1.2008/31.1.2008 passed in Khanpur PS Case No. 75/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Samastipur. The aforesaid case was registered against the petitioners for the offences alleged to have been committed under section 379 of the Penal Code and sections 39/44 of the Bihar Electricity Act. The petitioners filed an application before the Lok Adalat as they wished to settle the matter. In accordance with the order of the Lok Adalat contained in Annexures 2 and 3, it would appear that counsel for Electricity Board as well as the State counsel were heard in this matter. After they were heard, the Lok Adalat came to the finding that there was no instrument to measure loss caused to the Board. As such the claim made by the Electricity Board appears to be excessive. Eventually, the Electricity Board agreed that if the petitioners who came below the poverty line paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- and 80,000/- respectively, they would be exempted from the said theft of electricity. 2 Accordingly, vide Annexure 4 series, they paid the sum of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.75,000/- . Despite aforesaid order of the Lok Adalat, cognizance has been taken without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Since at the stage of cognizance the accused are not heard, the petitioners could not have the liberty to bring this fact to the notice of the court below. I accordingly find that in view of the order of the Lok Adalat, the State Government cannot claim that the petitioners should pay an additional amount for compounding the offence under section 152 of the Electricity Act. As such this court quashes the impugned order. This application is, thus, allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)