Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1577 (PNJ)

Malkiat Singh v. State Of Punjab

2008-09-15

A.N.JINDAL

body2008
Judgment 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. 3. 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 Jo 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 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. 4. 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. 5. In the present case, the facts are not in dispute and the only question which arises for determination is, as to whether in the said facts, any offence against the petitioner is made out, so as to make him liable to face the criminal trial. If even after taking the allegations as true on their face value, the same do not constitute any offence against the petitioner, then certainly, the court is vested with ample powers to quash the criminal proceedings. Similar view was taken by the Apex court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426. 6. Admittedly, in the instant case after the meter was checked and found to be tampered with, the petitioner was issued demand notice, in response to which, he deposited an amount of Rs. 3,14,093/- under protest to void further harassment. The copies of the demand notice and the receipt of the amount deposited, have been placed on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3. In the reply, it is also stated that the petitioner was charged with penalty in accordance with the PSEB Rules and Regulations and the electricity connection was restored on its payment. In such circumstances, when respondent No. 2 - Electricity Board itself offered to compound the offence by imposing penalty, then initiation of criminal proceedings for the same act, was an abuse of the process of law. A similar view was taken by this Court in Harish Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2003(3) Recent Criminal Cases 784, wherein, after payment of the compensation amount as per policy of the Board, the continuance of the case registered for theft of electricity was treated as a futile exercise and for that reason, the criminal proceedings were quashed. A similar view was taken by this Court in Harish Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2003(3) Recent Criminal Cases 784, wherein, after payment of the compensation amount as per policy of the Board, the continuance of the case registered for theft of electricity was treated as a futile exercise and for that reason, the criminal proceedings were quashed. Similarly, this court in Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana and others, 2001(1) Recent Criminal Cases 143 observed as under :- "2.1 am of the considered opinion that the policy decision ought to have been brought to the notice of the trial Court by the respondents. In its policy, it is stated that as per the instructions issued by Sale circular No. 31 /98, whenever a case of theft of electricity is detected, the supply of power to the consumer is to be discontinued immediately. Simultaneously, an FIR is to be lodged invariably. The aforesaid provisions had been reviewed and it has been decided that whenever a case of theft of electricity is detected at the premises of a consumer, he be first given the option of depositing 100% of the assessed amount inclusive of penalty, if any, by 5.00 p.m, the next day. In case, the consumer deposits the amount in time, no FIR should be lodged. It is only in the case when the consumer fails to make the payment within the stipulated time, an FIR should invariably be lodged. Inspite of the aforesaid circular, the proceedings have been, permitted to continue in the trial Court. For continuing the proceedings in the trial Court, in the reply, it is stated that the police is not competent to compound the offence which is exclusive jurisdiction of the Court. It is, however, also mentioned that the petitioner is at liberty to move an application before the trial Court for compounding the offence." 7. Yet, in another case Manjit Sa/tdev and another v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another, 2006(3) RCR(Crl.) 774, this Court observed as under :- "5. In my considered opinion, continuance of proceedings would result in abuse of process of Court because the prosecution itself is not interested in pursuing the matter and take it to its logical end having accepted the compensation amount and having already made a request to the department concerned. In my considered opinion, continuance of proceedings would result in abuse of process of Court because the prosecution itself is not interested in pursuing the matter and take it to its logical end having accepted the compensation amount and having already made a request to the department concerned. The afore-referred documents clearly show that the continuance of proceedings would unnecessarily result in wastage of time of the prosecuting department because a decision for not prosecuting the case has already been taken. The ends of justice would be secured if the proceedings emanating from the FIR are quashed." 8. While getting affirmative support from the afore-quoted decisions, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner has already deposited the penalty amount as required by the respondent - Electricity Board for compounding of the offence as per policy decision, thus, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. 9. Consequently, FIR No. 183 dated 27.5.2003 registered at Police station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana and the proceedings consequent thereto, are quashed.