Judgment :- 1. This petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for Short `the Code’) is for quashing of First Information Report (for short, `FIR’) registered by 3rd respondent against petitioners, for offences under Sections 135 (1) and 152 of Electricity Act, 2003 (for short `the Act’). The only ground urged for quashing of FIR is that, 3rd respondent has no competence to register the FIR, on a written complaint received from Vigilance squad of GESCOM with regard to the alleged theft of electricity. 2. Background facts of the case are: 1st petitioner is an industrial concern. 2nd petitioner is its Proprietor. Petitioners obtained power sanction for industrial purpose from GESCOM. Vigilance squad of GESCOM made a surprise check of the industrial premises of petitioners on 2.12.2008 and found that there was theft of electricity. A member of the Vigilance squad, who is of the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer, filed complaint before the 3rd respondent/Police Sub-Inspector (Vigilance) Police station, GESCOM, Bellary stating that, petitioners have committed theft of electricity of the value of Rs.59,15,775/-and action may be taken in accordance with law. 3rd respondent registered a case in Crime No.510 of 2008 on 3.12.2008. Before the investigation could be completed and charge sheet filed, this petition has been filed to quash FIR submitted to the District and Sessions Judge, Bellary. 3. It is the contention of Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, since `the Act’ is a special legislation, procedure under Section 151 of the Act, would prevail over Sections 4 and 5 of the Code. He contended that, in view of the provision made under Section 151 of the Act, which specifically provides for institution of prosecution only upon a complaint, does not include a complaint within the meaning of the complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code. He contended that, offence being non-cognizable, 3rd respondent, has no power of investigation without permission of the Court. He contended that, in view of Section 151 of the Act, prosecution is permissible only upon a complaint and not on a police report. Therefore, registration of the case and continuation of the proceedings being illegal, may be quashed. 4. He contended that, offence being non-cognizable, 3rd respondent, has no power of investigation without permission of the Court. He contended that, in view of Section 151 of the Act, prosecution is permissible only upon a complaint and not on a police report. Therefore, registration of the case and continuation of the proceedings being illegal, may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Sri P.H. Gotkhindi, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the third respondent contended that, a complaint was filed before third respondent by Vigilance team of GESCOM, which had inspected petitioners’ industry and had allegedly detected theft of electricity. According to him, Government of Karnataka, by issuing Notification dated 11.09.2003, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (s) of S.2 of the Code, in supersession of an earlier Notification dated 25.02.2003, has declared the places specified in column (2) of the Table thereunder to be the police stations and included the areas mentioned in the corresponding entries in Column (3) to be the police station specified in Column (2). He invited my attention to the entries at Serial Nos.28 and 34 of the Table and the note and contended that, complaint has been rightly lodged before third respondent, which is the declared police station in respect of the area within which the petitioners are having their industry, wherein the offence was allegedly committed. He invited my attention, to the amended Act i.e., Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Act No.26 of 2007) with effect from 29.05.2007, more particularly to the insertion of two provisos under S.151, Sections 151A and 151B to the Act. It was contended that, after insertion of the first proviso to S.151 of the Act, restriction contained under S.151 of the Act has been removed and that S.151A of the Act, confers power on the police to investigate an offence punishable under the Act by conferring on the police officer all the powers provided in Chapter XII of the Code and with insertion of S.151B to the Act, certain offences to be cognizable and non-bailable offences, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code. It was submitted that, offences alleged against petitioners fall under S.135(1) of the Act and in view of S.151B, they being cognizable and non-bailable, there is no illegality committed in receiving the complaint, registering the case and in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional Court. 5. It was submitted that, offences alleged against petitioners fall under S.135(1) of the Act and in view of S.151B, they being cognizable and non-bailable, there is no illegality committed in receiving the complaint, registering the case and in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional Court. 5. Smt. Pushpavathi M. Dhongadi, learned Advocate appearing for GESCOM, while adopting the contentions urged by learned HCGP, contended that, Vigilance team having inspected the industrial premises of the petitioners and having detected the theft of electricity, the value of which is to the extent of Rs.59,15,775/-, a written complaint was filed before the third respondent, which is the declared police station. She submitted that, the offence committed by petitioners in respect of which complaint has been lodged is a cognizable one and hence, by registering the case and in sending FIR to the jurisdictional court, third respondent has not committed any illegality. She further submitted that, this petition is motivated to delay the investigation, consequential prosecution and also to gain illegally. It was stated that, petitioners had filed W.P.No.63715/2009, questioning the assessment/demand made for payment of Rs.53,14,016/-which was dismissed on 14.07.2009 and petitioners have filed W.A. 6237/2009. It was submitted that, petitioners had also filed W.P.63010/2009 questioning an endorsement dated 11.2.2009 and to direct GESCOM to supply the electricity to RR No.HKP – 33. It was submitted that, without expressing any views on the allegations made against petitioners, direction was issued to the petitioners to deposit Rs.5,00,000/-, upon which, GESCOM was directed to restore electricity supply. It was submitted that, one of the factors which primarily weighed with the Court in passing the said order was the grant of interim order of stay in this case. According to her, this petition is motivated and is also an abuse of the due process of law by petitioners. 6. In reply, Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel, alternatively contended that, in terms of Notification No.HD 173 POP 2003 dated 11.09.2003 of Government of Karnataka, Vigilance Office which has been designated as the police station in respect of the area in question, falls in the Revenue District of Bellary and hence, it is the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) GESCOM which is the designated police station i.e., the one shown at Sl.No.34 in the Table. It was pointed out that, complaint was not even lodged before the said authority, but, has been lodged before third respondent, shown at Sl.No.28 in the Table to the said Notification. Hence, third respondent has no competence to register a case and forward FIR to the Court. It was contended that, there is harassment of petitioners by respondents, by abuse of the process and hence, FIR may be quashed. 7. Government of Karnataka, in exercise of the power conferred under S.2(s) of the Code and supersession of a Notification dated 25.02.2003, has issued Notification No.HD 173 POP 2003 dated 11.9.2003 declaring the places specified in Column (2) of Table thereunder as the police stations and including the local area specified in corresponding entries in Column (3) thereof, within the limits of police station specified in Column (2). The Relevant portion of said Notification reads as follows: TABLE Sl.No. Name and places of the Vigilance Office Local areas of Police Station included within the KPTCL Vigilance Officer specified in Column (2) .(1) .(2) .(3) 28 Office of the Inspector of Police (Vigilance) Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company, Bellary District. Revenue jurisdiction of Bellary, Hagaribommanahalli, Kudigi, Sandur, Huvinahadagalli, Hospet and Siruguppa Taluks. 34 Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company, Gulbarga. Revenue district of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur Bellary and Koppal Note below, reads as follows: The Police Stations specified in column (2) of the table shall have powers and jurisdiction only in respect of the offences committed under the provisions of: .(i) The Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003) .(ii) Section 379, 406, 407, 408, 409 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (iii) The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. Part XIV of the Act, which has in it Sections 135 to 152 have been grouped under the heading `OFFENCES AND PENALITES’. Theft of electricity falls under S.135 of the Act. Institution of Prosecution has been provided under S.151 of the Act. S.151 was amended under Karnataka Act 12 of 2006 on 1.6.2006 and again as per the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Act No.26 of 2007). Theft of electricity falls under S.135 of the Act. Institution of Prosecution has been provided under S.151 of the Act. S.151 was amended under Karnataka Act 12 of 2006 on 1.6.2006 and again as per the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Act No.26 of 2007). After the amendment S.151 and insertion of S.151A and S.151B, reads as follows: S.151 Institution of Prosecution: No prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence under this Act or any rule, regulation, license or order made or issued there under, except at the instance of the State Government or a licence or a generating company under the Act or an officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government or a licencee or a generating company under the Act or an officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government or a licencee or a generating company or by any person affected by the act alleged to constitute the offence. “Provided that the Court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Provided further that a special Court constituted under Section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.” “S.151A. For the purposes of investigation of an offence punishable under this Act, the police officer shall have all the powers as provided in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. S.151B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence punishable under Sections 135 to 140 or Section 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable”. (Emphasis supplied by me) 9. If theft of electricity was found to have been committed, cognizance could have been taken by a Court, only upon a complaint in writing made by the specified authority under S.151. Such was the position prior to the amendment of S.151, under Karnataka Act 12 of 2006. In view of the amendment with effect from 1.6.2006 and also insertion of the first proviso under S.151 (supra), the Court can also take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act upon the report of a police officer filed under S.173 of the Code. In view of the amendment with effect from 1.6.2006 and also insertion of the first proviso under S.151 (supra), the Court can also take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act upon the report of a police officer filed under S.173 of the Code. Police have been conferred the power to investigate an offence under the Act, by conferring upon them all the powers as provided under Chapter XII of the Code. All the offences under Sections 135 to 140 or 150 of the Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable offences under the Act notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, by virtue of insertion of S.151B. 10. “Cognizable offence” in terms of the definition contained in S.2(c) of the Code, reads as follows: S.2(c) “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant: 11. `The Act’ is a special legislation. `The Code’ is a general enactment. The general enactment – Code, will operate when there is no contra provision in any other special enactment. The provisions of the Act, more particularly the first proviso to S.151, S.151A and S.151B, empower the police officers to conduct investigation and to arrest without any warrant any of the persons who are found committing the offences under Ss.135 to 140 or S.150 of the Act. Theft of electricity as per S.135 of the Act, is a cognizable offence in view of the S.151B of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the police have not competence to register the case and send FIR to the Court cannot be countenanced, since the offence falls within the definition of S.2(c) of the Code. 12. According to the Vigilance team of GESCOM, theft of electricity by the petitioners was found on 2.12.2008 and a complaint in that regard was lodged before 3rd respondent on 3.12.2008. Indisputably, the offence falls within the scope of Section 135 of the Act. In terms of Section 151-B of the Act, it is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Such an offence can be investigated by a police officer in exercise of the powers as per S.151-A of the Act. Indisputably, the offence falls within the scope of Section 135 of the Act. In terms of Section 151-B of the Act, it is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Such an offence can be investigated by a police officer in exercise of the powers as per S.151-A of the Act. In view of the Notification dated 11.9.2003 (supra) issued by the Government of Karnataka, the local areas of the police station included within the KPTCL Vigilance Officer specified in Column No.(2) in regard to the revenue jurisdiction of Bellary Taluk, is the one shown at Sl.No.28 under the table (supra), i.e., the office of the 3rd respondent. Industrial premises of the petitioners is indisputably situated within the revenue jurisdiction of Bellary Taluk. The alleged offence has taken place within the revenue jurisdiction of Bellary Taluk. Hence, 3rd respondent having been declared as Vigilance Office in respect of the local area of Bellary Taluk revenue jurisdiction, has the authority to receive the complaint, register the case and send the FIR to the Court. S.154 of the Code is with regard to the information in cognizable cases. S.156 of the Code is with regard to police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case. In terms of S.156 of the Code, any officer in-charge of police station may, without the order of the Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station, would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. S.156 of the Code does not say that, an information of cognizable offence can only be made to an officer in-charge of a police station. S.36 of the Code is with regard to the powers of superior officers of police. The officers shown both at Sl.Nos. 28 and 34 of the Table to the above said notification could exercise the powers throughout the local areas to which they are appointed. It is not in dispute that, local area of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) GESCOM at Sl.No.34 of the table, is a much larger area than the revenue jurisdiction of Bellary Taluk. Hence, there is no inconsistency with regard to the exercise of power by the 3rd respondent, even though the area gets encompassed in the local area and the powers of the officer shown at Sl.No.3 under the table. Hence, there is no inconsistency with regard to the exercise of power by the 3rd respondent, even though the area gets encompassed in the local area and the powers of the officer shown at Sl.No.3 under the table. Hence, 3rd respondent has competence to file the FIR. 1. S.482 of the Code saves the inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings pending in any Court, but the power cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence. For the foregoing reasons, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merit and the petition has to fail. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observations made in this order is only for the limited purpose of deciding this petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case which shall be subject to the outcome of the investigation. Ordered accordingly.