- (1.) This is a petition for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the respondent-BSES Rajdhani Power Limited against the petitioner under Section 135 of Electricity Act read with Sections 151 and 154 thereof. The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that during inspection/raid, conducted by its officials on 26th February, 2007, at the back portion of factory of one Ballan Singh, in Khasra No. 5, Village Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, it was found that the accused persons were indulging in direct theft of electricity by tapping BSES lines and connecting to a change over switch from where three phases were distributed to plastic moulding and mixing machines. The entire load in the premises was found running direct from BSES RPL System. The officials of BSES had to enter the premises by jumping from the gate, which had been intentionally closed on seeing them and police officials and in order to avoid inspection.
(2.) The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise power under it, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR(SC) 604. The illustrative categories indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as follows: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constituter only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Ors., 2009 1 SCC 516, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the proposition of law on the subject as under: (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirely, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
(3.) It has been specifically alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was one of the persons who was using the electricity by committing theft from BSES lines. Whether the petitioner was actually one of the users or not is a matter which requires investigation during trial. Suffice it to say that the name of this petitioner, as one of the users, finds mention in the Inspection Report - (Meter Details) Annexure-6 to the petition against column "Remarks". Three persons, namely, Raj Singh, Mahavir and Rohit, are shown as the users and the address shown is back side of K. No. 2631J0510057, Khasra No. 5, Village Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi. The observations made in the Inspection Report also show that it was a case of direct theft by tapping from BSES lines. Column 2.2 of the Inspection Report, placed on page 36 of the file, shows that three persons Raj Singh, Advocate, Rohit and Mahavit have been shown as user and the address shown is back side of K. No. 2631J0510057, Khasra No. 5, Village Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi. Obviously, K. No. 2631J0510057 is the electric connection installed in the factory of Ballan Singh.;