9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of FIR, charge sheet, and proceedings under Section 39 of the Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC based on lack of evidence and improper prosecution. Analysis: The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR, charge sheet, and subsequent proceedings, arguing that no offense was made out. The FIR was related to theft of electric energy, allegedly involving consumers and employees of the Haryana State Electricity Board. The Additional Sessions Judge had previously discharged 54 persons due to lack of evidence. The State of Haryana's challenge to this discharge was dismissed, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of theft of electricity through tampering with meters. The court highlighted that the mere control over meters by the accused was insufficient to establish theft. The lack of evidence led to the dismissal of the challenge. The petitioner further sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C, citing a previous judgment regarding the theft of electricity. The court reiterated the need for a complaint under Section 151 of the Electricity Act for theft of electricity under Section 135. It emphasized that the special law of the Electricity Act would prevail over general laws like Section 379 IPC. Launching prosecution under IPC based on unauthorized complaints was deemed an abuse of process. The court referred to a previous case to support its decision, highlighting the need for specialized knowledge in electricity matters to establish theft. Applying the principles from previous judgments, the court concluded that no complaint under Section 151 of the Electricity Act was filed for theft of electricity, rendering the charges invalid. The court emphasized that the special provisions of the Electricity Act superseded general laws like IPC. Prosecution based on unauthorized complaints was considered illegal. The court ordered the quashing of the FIR, charge sheet, and subsequent proceedings, citing an abuse of the court process. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR, charge sheet, and all subsequent proceedings. It clarified that this decision did not grant immunity to the petitioners for any established misuse of electricity. The rights of the Electricity Board in pending recovery proceedings against the petitioner were preserved, ensuring that the judgment did not prejudice the Board's rights in pursuing any liabilities arising from electricity misuse.
|
