Allahabad High Court
Varun Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 July, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2025:AHC:100693 Reserved on 20.05.2025 Delivered on 01.07.2025 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27630 of 2024 Applicant :- Varun Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant praying for quashing of cognizance and summoning order dated 20.5.2023 and the proceedings of Special ST no.694 of 2023 (State Vs Varun Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.1481 of 2020 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 pending in the court of Special Judge (E. C. Act), Allahabad.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the mother of applicant, namely, Sushma Yadav is bona-fide consumer of electricity having her electricity account no. 9835895000, granted by Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, House Campus 83E/11 Chhota Baghara, District-Prayagraj. She is regularly depositing the electricity bill when it is provided by the electricity department. She is neither defaulter consumer nor applicant or his mother have committed any irregularity or other illegal act against the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that as per prosecution, raid was conducted by the officials of the Electricity Department at 3.15 PM on 28-12-2019 in which the mother of applicant namely Smt. Sushma Yadav was found consuming electricity unauthorizedly. A consumer inspection report was prepared mentioning that the electricity theft was being committed by inserting cable in the LT line in her premises. Thereafter, provisional assessment notice was issued to the mother of applicant, in response thereof, mother of applicant filed an objection before the Executive Engineer of electricity department and stated that the alleged checking dated 28.12.2019 said to be done by the electricity department but till today, there was no complaint against the applicant in pursuance of electricity theft and mother of applicant is continuously using electricity in her house and regularly paying its bill in electricity department.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that after knowledge of the said facts that no compliant of electricity theft has been lodged against the applicant or his mother, then immediately, the Sub Divisional Officer lodged first information report 29-04-2020 against the applicant after four months of incident stated therein that on 28.12.2019, applicant was involved in electricity theft by inserting cable in the LT line for his premises. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against applicant under Section 135(1)(A) of Electricity Act on 08.01.2023 whereupon learned trial court took cognizance on dated 20.05.2023. By means of instant application, the applicant has challenged the summoning order as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
6. Learned counsel for applicant argued that while passing the cognizance order, the learned court concerned has overlooked the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 as well as law laid down by the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 AIR 604 wherein the Apex Court has summarized some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following grounds/clauses:-
“(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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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 FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute 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.”
(emphasis added)
7. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that as per the above guidelines, clause (6) and (7) are clearly attracted in the facts of the instant case. In clause (6), it has been mentioned that if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings is instituted, such proceeding can be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the certified copy of the FIR, filed as Annexure-6 to this application, and submitted that in the instant matter, raid was conducted by the officials of the Electricity Department at 3.15 PM on 28.12.2019 and the informant himself has admitted in his statement that he had disconnected the electricity on the same day and thereafter prepared the checking report. It is submitted that the FIR should have been lodged within twenty-four hours i.e. next day 29.12.2019 but it was lodged after more than four months i.e. on 29.04.2020, which is clear cut violation of the second proviso to Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides for lodging FIR of such incident within twenty-four hour from the time of such disconnect. Thus, there is a specific legal bar on the officer concerned to lodge any such offence in police station, as such, the learned trail court could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The aforesaid law is recognized by this Court in the case of Pankaj Upadhyay Vs State of U.P & others, (Cri. Misc. Application no. 15760 of 2025).
9. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that when law requires something to be done in a particular manner anything done otherwise will be void and illegal. For substantiating this argument, learned counsel relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Jharkhand & others vs. Ambay Cements & another, 2005 (1) AIR 368 in para 27 of the judgment the Hon’ble Court held:
“It is the cardinal rule of the interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed.”
10. In the case of Dr. Arun Kumar vs. Nagar Nigam Bareilly, 2017 (2) ADJIR 638, the principles have been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court as follows:
“When law requires something to be done in a particular manner anything done otherwise will be void and illegal.”
11. As such, the subsequent proceeding going on pursuant to the said FIR, is nothing but gross abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.
12. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that as provided under clause (7) in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra), where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge, and in such a situation, the FIR or complaint can be quashed.
13. Learned counsel for applicant apprised the Court that the father of applicant had built a house in which students used to live on rent. After his death, mother of applicant got five rooms constructed on the second floor of the same house for her residence. After the construction, applicant contacted the Sub Division Officer/opposite party no.2 for electricity connection on this new construction, he demanded illegal gratification for the electricity connection. Applicant is unable to fulfil the said demand on which he got angry and left from there and rejected the application form of applicant for electricity connection and set up story of electricity theft and lodged first information report against the applicant only to save his own skin, he himself submitted report to Executive Engineer that the offence committed by Sushma Yadav (mother of applicant) by stealing electricity by bypassing the meter and issued a demand notice in the name of Sushma Yadav and directed to deposit rupees Rs.-5,77,287/- in the account of the electricity department, whereas as per the FIR lodged by him in the police station that the offence committed by Varun Kumar Yadav/applicant by inserting cable in the LT line for his premises. By perusal of the checking report as well as demand notice, it is evident that entire allegations against Sushma Yadav/mother of applicant, who is consumer and also owner of house but due to malafide and malice intention, the instant criminal proceeding has been initiated against the applicant.
14. Lastly, learned counsel for applicant submitted that impugned order is vitiated by errors of law and procedure and therefore, this Court may exercise its jurisdiction to correct the errors by way of setting aside the impugned order as well as proceedings of court below.
15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but they could not dispute about the delay in lodging of the FIR. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that it was the applicant who involved in theft of electricity by cutting LT line and as such, criminal proceedings initiated against him, is justified.
16. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to examine the provisions mentioned under Electricity Act, 2003. The, Chapter XIV of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with offences and penalties relating to electricity theft. Section 135 (1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that upon information about theft of electricity, the officer shall immediately disconnect the supply of electricity. The second proviso to section 135 (1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 further provides that the officer shall lodge a complaint in writing of such offence of electricity theft in police station within twenty-four from the time of such disconnection. The relevant provision of 135 (1-A) of the of the Electricity Act, 2003 is being quoted below-
“135-(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity:
Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity:
Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the time of such disconnection:”
17. By perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the legislature has given powers to the officials of the Electricity Department to act under special circumstances with the objective that innocent people should not be harassed. For this reason, it has been provided that in case of electricity theft, the officials of the Electricity Department shall immediately disconnect the electricity connections and within 24 hours of disconnection of the electricity connection, a First Information Report shall have to be lodged in the police station. In the present case, admittedly the raid was conducted by the officials at 3.15 PM on 28.12.2019 and although the FIR should have been lodged on the very next day i.e. 29.12.2019 but it was lodged after more than four months. Therefore, this Court is of the view that on this ground alone, the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant cannot be allowed to proceed.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant application is allowed. Consequently, cognizance and summoning order dated 20.5.2023 and the proceedings of Special ST no.694 of 2023 (State Vs Varun Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.1481 of 2020 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 pending in the court of Special Judge (E. C. Act), Allahabad are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 1.7.2025
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava, J.)