ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 31.8.2005 by which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence under Sections 379, IPC and 33/34 of the Electricity Act. 3. The facts, which were not disputed, are that the Assistant Engineer lodged a First Information Report on 4.3.2002 alleging inter alia that on inspection made by him on 2.3.2002, he found the petitioner committing theft of electricity by hooking. A criminal case was instituted on 4.3.2002 and the impugned order of cognizance was passed on 31.8.2005. 4. Mr. P.C. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assigned the impugned order mainly on the ground that this order of taking cognizance is barred by the provisions under Section 468, Cr PC, inasmuch as cognizance of the case has been taken beyond the period of three years. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it is manifestly clear that a mechanical order has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a printed form of an order by simply filing up certain blanks. There is totally a non-application of judicial mind. Hence, on this ground alone, the order of cognizance cannot be sustained in law. 6. Although the consequential order would be to remit back the matter to the Magistrate for passing a fresh order, but in the instant case, I found from the FIR that the allegation made against the petitioner is that by reason of theft of electricity, the Board has sustained a loss a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Mr. Tripathi submits that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been deposited with the Board before releasing the petitioner on bail. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and also the fact that the petitioner has been dragged into the litigation since 2002, it would not be proper to continue the said proceeding, since the petitioner has been sufficiently punished. Hence, for the ends of justice, the entire criminal proceeding as also the order of cognizance is hereby quashed. However, this order will not be a precedent for other cases. 8. This application is, accordingly, allowed. Application allowed.