Judgment 1. The petitioner who is the second accused in C.C. No.6476/2003 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15, has filed the above petition seeking to quash all further proceedings therein. .2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows: .On 10.01.2003 at 19-15 hours, the officials of the Electricity Board inspected the service connection No.217:08:635:TF:V in Door No.159, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41 which stands in the name of the petitioner herein and it was found that there as theft of energy by tampering the MRC seal provided in the meter. A show cause notice dated 22.01.2003 was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer for the recovery of the loss and also extra levy in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. Finally for the alleged offence, a Complaint under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was made in Cr. No.50 of 2003 of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station and after completing investigation, the first respondent had filed a final report and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate. .3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that A1 in the case has filed a Quash Petition in Crl.O.P. No.42862/2003 and the same was allowed by the order dated 16.02.2004 by Mr. Justice S. Ashok Kumar (as His Lordship then was). He further submitted that the petitioner by paying the compounding charges of Rs.44,075/- as evidenced by IA receipt No.477860/11.08.2005, has compounded the offence. In such circumstances, the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be continued in the light of the provisions contained under Section 152(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. .Learned councel further submitted that now, after the amendment effected in the Indian Electricity Act, conferring jurisdiction on the Sessions Court to entertain Complaints under the Act, the case in C.C. No.6476/2003 pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15, has been transferred of the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as C.C. No.12/2007. 4. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent was heard who also agrees with the said contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have considered the said submission and perused the materials available on record. 6. 4. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent was heard who also agrees with the said contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have considered the said submission and perused the materials available on record. 6. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be useful to refer to the provisions contained in Section 152(1) and (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, which reads here under: “152. Compounding of offences: Not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). The Appropriate Government, or any officer authorized by it in this behalf may accept from any consumer or person who committed or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act, a sum of money by way of compounding of the offence as specified in the Table below: TABLE Nature of Service Rate at which the sum of money for compounding to be collected per Kilo Watt (KW)/Horse Power (HP) or part thereof for Low Tension (LT) supply and per Kilo Watt Ampere (KVA) of contracted demand for High Tension (HT) 1. Industrial Service 2. Commercial Service 3. Agricultural Service 4. Other Services Rupees Twenty Thousand only Rupees Ten Thousand only Rupees Two Thousand only Rupees Four Thousand only Provided that the Appropriate Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, amend the rates specified in the Table above. On payment of the sum of money in accordance with sub-section (1), any person in custody in connection with that offence shall be set at liberty and no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against such consumer or person in any Criminal Court.” In page 18 of the typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed the communication sent by the 2nd respondent to the first respondent informing the 1st respondent about the payment made by the petitioner herein of a sum of Rs.44,075/- for compounding the charges and withdrawing the Police Complaint given on 10.01.2003. Now that the petitioner has admittedly paid the sum of Rs.44,075/- and the 2nd respondent has submitted a letter to the 1st respondent seeking to withdraw the Complaint and making a request to drop the Criminal proceedings, the provisions contained under Section 152 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 comes into operation. Section 152(2) of the Act makes it clear that on payment of the sum of money in accordance with sub-sections (1), any person in custody in connection with that offence shall be set at liberty and no proceedings shall be instituted to continued against such consumer or person in any Criminal Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded and the Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.12/2007 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, cannot be continued any further. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the above Petition is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No.12/2007 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, are quashed in respect of the petitioner herein. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.