Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 91/2009, registered at the Police Station A.P.T. Rajsamand, Distt. Rajasmand for the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Rajasthan Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the F.I.R. submits that firstly, the inspection which was done at the petitioners premises was done on the basis of a request made by the petitioners regarding fault in the electric meter and, therefore, ex facie the prosecution of the petitioners is illegal and unwarranted in this case. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that whatever liability was calculated by the Department has been deposited by the petitioners with the Department has been deposited by the petitioners with the Department and, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners in vitiated as being hit by Section 152 of the Act. He therefore prays that the impugned F.I.R. and all other subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed in this case.
(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Mr. Kuldeep Mathur and Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat appearing for the Electricity Distribution Company submit that in this case, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners are absolutely unfounded and misconceived. It is submitted that compounding of the offence under the Act is permissible only when the offence is committed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. He submits that in this case, when the inspection was done, the Inspecting Officer has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioners were responsible for the commission of the offences tinder Sections 135 and 138 of the Act. It is therefore contended that as the offence tinder Section 138 of the Electricity Act is not a compoundable offence, even if the petitioners had deposited the electricity charges, then too, they are not absolved from the criminal liability in this regard.;