Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Navin Prakashsingh Thakur, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.401/2020 registered at Police Station Akot File, Akola for an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The FIR was lodged by the second non-applicant, Sandip Rambhau Kayande, who is the Additional Executive Engineer of the Flying Squad of MSEDCL. The allegations in the FIR stated that on 25.08.2020 at about 12:30 a.m., during an inspection of the applicant's premises, a person named Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj restrained the inspection team from entering. Upon checking the electric meter, it was found that the nut-bolt of the meter had been loosened to display zero consumption, resulting in theft of electricity worth Rs.5,36,856/- over the previous five months. Compounding charges of Rs.8,04,200/- were assessed. The FIR implicated the applicant along with the tenant Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj and one Rupali Wagh. The applicant contended that he was the owner of the premises but had given it on rent to Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj, and there was no evidence of his involvement in the alleged theft. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the FIR did not disclose any specific act by the applicant and that the allegations primarily pertained to the tenant. The court held that mere ownership of the premises does not attract liability under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 without proof of direct involvement. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom against the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Electricity Act - Section 135 - The court considered whether an FIR alleging theft of electricity can be quashed against the owner of the premises when the allegations primarily implicate the tenant and there is no specific evidence of the owner's involvement. The court held that mere ownership of the premises does not attract liability under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 without proof of direct involvement in the tampering or theft. The FIR was quashed against the applicant. (Paras 1-10) B) Electricity Act - Theft of Electricity - Section 135 - The court examined the scope of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and held that the offence requires active participation in the theft or tampering of the electric meter. The allegations in the FIR did not disclose any specific act by the applicant, and the tenant was the one who restrained the inspection team. The court quashed the FIR against the applicant. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the applicant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 should be quashed when the allegations primarily implicate the tenant and there is no specific evidence of the applicant's involvement in the theft of electricity.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed FIR No.401/2020 and all proceedings arising therefrom against the applicant.
Law Points
- Mere ownership of premises does not attract liability under Section 135 of the Electricity Act
- 2003 without evidence of direct involvement in theft
- Criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when FIR does not disclose prima facie case against the applicant
