Skip to main content
Court Order

Order 6

CNR DLET01007440202423 May 2026
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Order 6 · 23 May 2026 · CNR DLET010074402024

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: SC 1231/2024
STATE (BSES) VS. KRISHAN PAL
FIR No.344/2022
PS HARASH VIHAR
23.05.2026
Present: Sh.Gaurav Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Mukesh Sharma, AR for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
Sh. Rahul, Ld. Counsel for accused through VC.
Ld. Counsel for accused submits that he has filed an
application for dropping of the proceedings/discharge of the
accused.
Arguments heard on the said application.
It is submitted that there is no iota of evidence against
the accused Krishan Pal because the property documents which
are placed on record pertain to Khasra No.13/1, Property No. A-
323, Village Saboli, Radha Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi-110093. He
further submits that the address of the inspected premises is
different from the address of the accused.
Ld. Addl. PP assisted by the AR of the complainant
company submits that IO, after due investigation, has identified
the inspected premises as belonging to accused Krishan Pal.
If the electricity theft was not going in the premises of
the accused and the property on which inspection was carried
out, is different, the same is matter of trial and can be proved in
the course of the same.
Law regarding the framing of notice/charge is very
clear that at the stage of framing of notice/charge, the case of the
prosecution is to be taken as true and then it has to be seen
-- 1 of 2 --
whether essential ingredients for the offence are made out or not.
Moreover, Ld. Counsel for accused has not placed on record any
material so as to prima facie shows that the inspected premises is
different from the premises of the accused. It is only a bald
assertion. In addition to the same, the videography of the
inspection proceedings which has been given to the accused, is
once again played and shown to the accused who admitted that
the premises as appearing in the videography are his premises
only.
Ld. Counsel for accused has also not made the
submissions that the premises shown in the videography are
different from the premises of the accused. Therefore, there is no
substance in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for accused and
the application of the accused seeking his discharge stands
dismissed.
Put up on 28.07.2026 for framing of notice.
(ASHISH RASTOGI)
ASJ-05(Electricity)/East
Karkardooma Courts
Delhi /23.05.2026
-- 2 of 2 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.