Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 958 (PNJ)

Narender Singh v. State Of Haryana

2005-09-07

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Narender Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 318 dated 28.10.2001 under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Electricity Act registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak and the subsequent proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is running an oil mill in village Bohar, Tehsil and District Rohtak and the electricity meter for use of the electricity has been installed in the mill premises. On 4.10.2001, the officials of the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited along with respondent No. 2 raided the premises of the petitioner on a complaint that the petitioner was stealing the electricity. The raiding party removed the electricity meter and took it in its possession and subsequently, wrote letter to the SHO, Police Station Rohtak on 23.10.2001. On the basis of the said letter, the aforesaid FIR was registered. 3. In the complaint, it was written that on 4.10.2001, the business premise of the petitioner was raided and during the raid, the petitioner was found stealing energy. In the checking report, which was also annexed with the aforesaid complaint, copy of which is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2, it has been reported as under : "The meter glass was found tampered and re-fixed. This was done to have access to internal mechanism of the meter, manipulate the same so as to make the meter record less consumption than actually consumed energy. An act of theft of energy. The meter was packed in card box paper sealed with sign of consumer and checking party and duly sealed box handed over to Sh. Mangti Ram AFM. Service cable lying at site was also taken in possession by the OP wing". Subsequently, the challan was filed on 3.12.2001 by the police, copy of which has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3. After filing of the challan, the petitioner made a request to the Court that the meter be got tested at the Mechanical Workshop of the complainant Corporation as the meter had never been tampered with by the petitioner and the report made by the raiding party is totally false. After filing of the challan, the petitioner made a request to the Court that the meter be got tested at the Mechanical Workshop of the complainant Corporation as the meter had never been tampered with by the petitioner and the report made by the raiding party is totally false. The Magistrate, vide order dated 7.2.2002, sent that meter for mechanical test at the workshop with direction to give the report whether the meter has been tampered with and the electricity has been stolen by removing/breaking the glass of the meter. Under the said direction, the meter of the petitioner was checked by Shri O.P. Arora, AE, M&T, Sh. Sushil Kumar AE, M&T and Shri Suresh Hood, JE and they submitted the following report : 1. The seal of the meter cover compared with sample seal and found genuine and intact. 2. The accuracy and dial test for first digit is O.K. 3. To inspect the meter glass retaining mechanism from inside the meter seals are opened and found meter glass seen and its rubber gasket and screw finds tight. No. tampering of the meter glass and replacement is observed. However, the meter is repaired and T&P meter. The meter and broken M&P seals placed in the card board duly signed by Mr. O.P. Arora AE, M&T Sh. Sushil Kumar AE M&T and Mr. Suresh Hood and handed over to Mr. Ramesh Kumar Constable for further action please. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the petitioner filed the instant petition. 4 Pursuant to the notice, reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 was filed and today, separate reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record. In both the replies, the aforesaid report submitted by the laboratory of the department has not been denied. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the report given by the laboratory of the complaint department itself, it has become absolutely clear that the aforesaid FIR is false and has been made by respondent No. 2 on false report and for extraneous consideration. In view of the said report, continuation of the proceedings in the FIR is an abuse of the process of law and the FIR should be quashed. 6. In view of the said report, continuation of the proceedings in the FIR is an abuse of the process of law and the FIR should be quashed. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, particularly the report, Annexure P-6, I am of the opinion that continuation of the proceedings in the aforesaid FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner on the complaint made by the raiding party, in which it was alleged that the petitioner has tampered with the meter glass and re-fixed the same to have access to internal mechanism of the meter and manipulate the same so as to make the meter record less consumption than actually consumed energy. This report of the checking party was found totally false, when the meter which was removed from the premises of the petitioner, was checked in the workshop of the complainant department and it was reported that no tampering of the meter glass and replacement is observed. In view of this specific report, the allegations against the petitioner cannot be sustained and appear to have falsely levelled. Thus, in such situation, continuation of proceedings in the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner is nothing butt an abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 318 dated 28.10.2001 under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Electricity Act registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak along with the subsequent proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak are quashed.