A.N.JINDAL, J. - (1.) - Provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been invoked by petitioner Malkiat Singh (herein referred as 'petitioner') for quashing FIR No. 183 dated 27.5.2003 registered at Police station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and further proceedings consequent thereupon.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that on 20.5.2003, Assistant Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Ludhiana checked the electric connection in the premises of the petitioner and took away the meter. It was sent to the Laboratory and found functioning properly, but only allegation against the petitioner was that there was some tampering with the seals. The Laboratory report found that some remote control device has been used by the petitioner to tamper with the meter. On these allegations, the present FIR was got registered by the Authorities of respondent No. 2 - Electricity Board, against the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 20.5.2003 (Annexure P-2) imposing penalty of Rs. 3,14,093/-, which was deposited by him vide receipt dated 21.5.2003 (Annexure P-3). Now, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the aforesaid First Information Report on the ground that he could not be axed twice, once the act committed by him has been dealt with, penalty has been imposed and deposited by him. It is contended that in the circumstances of the case, registration of the FIR on the same set of facts, amounts to double jeopardy. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Senior Executive Engineer (Operations), West Division (Special), PSEB, Ludhiana has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, wherein, it has been admitted that the case was registered against the petitioner on receipt of memo No. 3555 dated 21.5.2003 written by the answering officer to the Station House Officer, Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. The petitioner was found stealing electricity as the load sanctioned to him was 99.510 KW, while the actual load at the spot was found to be 116.605 KW. The process of checking the meter in the Equipment Laboratory was undertaken in the presence of Gurpreet Singh, son of the petitioner and on its checking it was transpired that seal screws were soldered and an extra electronic circuit was fitted therein. The petitioner was running the meter as per his wish, with the help of a remote control device. The answering respondent has admitted that pursuant to the notice of penalty, the petitioner has deposited the said amount.
(3.) HEARD . Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that challan has been presented against the petitioner, charges have been framed and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed.;