JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 91/2009, registered at the Police Station A.P.T. Rajsamand, Distt. Rajasmand for the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Rajasthan Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the F.I.R. submits that firstly, the inspection which was done at the petitioners premises was done on the basis of a request made by the petitioners regarding fault in the electric meter and, therefore, ex facie the prosecution of the petitioners is illegal and unwarranted in this case. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that whatever liability was calculated by the Department has been deposited by the petitioners with the Department has been deposited by the petitioners with the Department and, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners in vitiated as being hit by Section 152 of the Act. He therefore prays that the impugned F.I.R. and all other subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed in this case. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Mr. Kuldeep Mathur and Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat appearing for the Electricity Distribution Company submit that in this case, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners are absolutely unfounded and misconceived. It is submitted that compounding of the offence under the Act is permissible only when the offence is committed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. He submits that in this case, when the inspection was done, the Inspecting Officer has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioners were responsible for the commission of the offences tinder Sections 135 and 138 of the Act. It is therefore contended that as the offence tinder Section 138 of the Electricity Act is not a compoundable offence, even if the petitioners had deposited the electricity charges, then too, they are not absolved from the criminal liability in this regard. 4. They further submit that the notice which was issued to the petitioners after provisional assessment was for the electricity charge running into Rs. 1,25,44,026/- only. Against this demand, the petitioners have deposited just a meager sum of Rs. 7,87,500/- only. Thus, it is argued that the petitioners have not deposited the whole amount of the charges assessed against them and therefore there cannot be any justification for interference by this Court in the impugned F.I.R. 5. 1,25,44,026/- only. Against this demand, the petitioners have deposited just a meager sum of Rs. 7,87,500/- only. Thus, it is argued that the petitioners have not deposited the whole amount of the charges assessed against them and therefore there cannot be any justification for interference by this Court in the impugned F.I.R. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and upon going through the impugned F.I.R. as well as the case diary, it is manifest that firstly, the offences for which the F.I.R. has been registered includes the offence under Section 138 of the Electricity Act. Section 152 of the Act deals with compounding of an offence in relation to the theft of the electricity. The said offence is covered by Section 135 of the Act. Section 138 of the Act defines the offence which is distinct from the theft of electricity and the said offence is not a compoundable offence. That apart, the notice to the petitioners was for deposition of the electricity charges/civil liability to the tune of Rs. 1,25,44,026/- and against the said amount, the petitioners have deposited just a meager sum of Rs. 7,87,500/- only. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that by deposition of the sum of Rs. 7,87,500/- only, the petitioners have been absolved of their liability to face the criminal prosecution. 7. Resultantly, this misc. petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also disposed of.Petition dismissed. *******