ORDER Heard Sri Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, who appears on behalf of Opp.Party no.1 and Smt. Renu Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2/Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. Two petitioners, who are accused in Danapur P.S.Case no.331 of 2009, registered for the offence under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, have approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an F.I.R. i.e. F.I.R. in Danapur P.S.Case No.331 of 2009 dated 21.10.2009 registered for offence under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.2367 of 2009. 3. Short fact of the case is that on secret information with regard to theft of electricity, a raid was conducted in the premises of the Institutions of both the petitioners and during the raid, seal of the Meters were found tampered and it was assessed that petitioner no.1, who was proprietor of M/S Magadh Industrial Training Centre, Danapur, had put the Bihar State Electricity Board to loss a sum of Rs.16, 00,000/-. Similarly, petitioner no.2, who was proprietor of M/S Nationl Industrial Centre, Digha, Patna, was found to have put the Bihar State Electricity Board to loss of a sum of Rs.11,50,000/-. Thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged in Danapur Police Station vide Danapur P.S.Case No.331 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making a prayer for quashing of the F.I.R., has firstly argued that after the F.I.R. punitive bill was raised and electricity was disconnected in the premises of the petitioners and thereafter both the petitioners approached this Court by filing two writ petitions vide C.W.J.C.No.14594 of 2009 and C.W.J.C.No. 14590 of 2009 respectively against punitive bill. It was submitted that in the writ petition on 23.11.2009 i.e. Annexures- 4 and 4/1 to the first supplementary affidavit, which was filed on 08.12.2009, a Bench of this Court had deprecated action on the part of the Bihar State Electricity Board. Learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied on interim order passed by a Bench of this Court. For better appreciation, it would be appropriate to quote the same, which is as follows:– “An inspection was conducted in petitioner’s premises, which has a non-domestic service II connection. Learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied on interim order passed by a Bench of this Court. For better appreciation, it would be appropriate to quote the same, which is as follows:– “An inspection was conducted in petitioner’s premises, which has a non-domestic service II connection. It is alleged that the meter seal and body were allegedly found tampered. On that ground alone, the meter was then removed. Thus what was found was only tampering of meter seal and no physical tampering of meter was found but apparently unwarranted presumption is being drawn that merely because seal was found tampered it would be presumed that the meter was found tampered. One other aspect is that the employees of the Board had gone prepared with Magistrate and Police for the purpose of inspection, as if they knew what was to come. On basis of this unwarranted presumption an FIR was lodged alleging theft of electricity and a provisional assessment bill of about Rs.11 Lakhs was made on basis of theft under Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act. The meter was then removed and electric line was disconnected. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that if such an action is permitted then not a single consumer in the State would be safe. The authority of the Board could walk in any consumer’s premises, allege meter seal tampering, remove meter, institute F.I.R. and raise punitive bill. Once seal is broken and meter removed then consumer is left with no plausible defence at any stage and the word of the inspecting authority became final. In my view, prima facie, that is not correct because meter tampering and seal tampering are two different things. Merely because seal is tampered leads to no presumption of meter tampering. Board would have to establish meter tampering otherwise. The meters that are now installed are electronic meters having a memory chip, which records all particulars including attempt to tamper and/or unauthorised use of electricity. Thus when this information is scientifically available, instead of using that information lodging prosecution on conjecture and surmises and that too unwarranted in law cannot be permitted. Admittedly, in the present case beyond allegation of seal tampering against which the petitioner has no defence because the seals have been removed and the meters also removed from the premises. Thus when this information is scientifically available, instead of using that information lodging prosecution on conjecture and surmises and that too unwarranted in law cannot be permitted. Admittedly, in the present case beyond allegation of seal tampering against which the petitioner has no defence because the seals have been removed and the meters also removed from the premises. The Board would be now required to proceed on basis of MRI report obtained from memory chip which should be fully disclosed to the petitioner before any action is taken. Facts of this case would show how even before petitioner is found guilty, he has been punished on being served a provisional bill already branding him a thief and his connection disconnected even without any investigation in the matter. Such is not the Scheme of the Act nor is countenance by the Act. It could have been a different matter if meter is found by passed or there is a physical evidence of meter tampering. That is not the case here. Till further order of this Court the provisional bill shall not be enforced and the Board would be obliged to reconnect petitioner’s premises with duly tested and sealed meter. The Board would further be obliged to file a copy of MRI report of meter testing. Put up for admission as zero item on 14.12.2009 by which time Board would file on affidavit MRI report in this regard. Till further orders of the Court, parties must proceed, as ordered above, without prejudice to their rights.” 5. He further submits that while the present petition was filed, a Bench of this Court on 08.12.2009 directed for listing the present case after disposal of writ petitions i.e. C.W.J.C.Nos.14594 /2009 and 14590/2009. In the meanwhile, a Bench of this Court had restrained the authority from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners. He submits that both the writ petitions were finally disposed of and while disposing of the writ petitions; this Court had finally restrained the Bihar State Electricity Board from recovery of any amount of punitive bills raised against them. 6. In the meanwhile, a Bench of this Court had restrained the authority from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners. He submits that both the writ petitions were finally disposed of and while disposing of the writ petitions; this Court had finally restrained the Bihar State Electricity Board from recovery of any amount of punitive bills raised against them. 6. Sri Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the ground of observations made in the aforesaid writ petitions submits that once this Court had deprecated the action on the part of the Bihar State Electricity Board in the matter and finally writ petitions were disposed of, this Court may exercise inherent power and set aside the F.I.R.. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that in such circumstances, there was no question for lodging of an F.I.R.. He submits that as per Section-151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in such cases only complaint petition is to be lodged by the competent authority and no F.I.R. is required to be lodged. In sum and substance, it has been argued that in a case of electricity theft, no F.I.R. can be lodged. To corroborate his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a Single Bench order of this Court in Cr.Misc.No.19178 of 2007 (Annexure-3 to the main petition). He submits that almost in similar circumstances, F.I.R. lodged by the Electricity Board was set aside by a Single Bench of this Court. He submits that this Court had also noticed Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and mainly in view of Section 151 of the Act, this Court had quashed the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioners further, relying on Supreme Court Judgment reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, has argued that if there is statutory bar, then in that event, the Court either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well authorized to interfere with the matter and set aside the F.I.R. or criminal proceeding. Sri Kishore has specifically referred to paragraph nos.102 (6) of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). Sri Kishore has specifically referred to paragraph nos.102 (6) of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). He has further argued that while disposing of the writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C.No.14590 of 2009, this Court had directed the Electricity Board to obtain memory chip from the meter on the basis of MRI report and examine the same and only thereafter raise punitive bill. Alternatively, it has been argued that the Board may be directed to examine the Chip of the meter. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party/Bihar State Electricity Board submits that since the F.I.R. has already been lodged, it is difficult for the Board to take any action in respect of examining the meter and taking out chip from the meter. He submits that the meter is subject matter of investigation. Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that F.I.R. itself categorically discloses commission of cognizable offence and, as such, F.I.R. may not be interfered with. 8. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. Since heavy reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as on Single Bench order of this Court, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the main petition, it is necessary to examine the same. So far the order of Single Bench of this Court passed in Cr.Misc.No.19178 of 2007 is concerned, it is evident that in the said case, though the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2007, the provision of penal offence was referred from the Act, which had already been repelled. In the said F.I.R. Section 39 /44 of the Electricity Act, 1910 was incorporated. Secondly, before the Single Bench entire provision of Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not brought to the notice. On perusal of entire provision of Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is evident that lodging of F.I.R. is not barred. However, besides lodging F.I.R., there is also provision for filing complaint petition. To better appreciation, it is apt to quote entire Section 151 of the Electricity Act,2003, which is as follows:– 151. On perusal of entire provision of Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is evident that lodging of F.I.R. is not barred. However, besides lodging F.I.R., there is also provision for filing complaint petition. To better appreciation, it is apt to quote entire Section 151 of the Electricity Act,2003, which is as follows:– 151. Cognizance of offences.–No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose: [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(2 of 1974): 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] This clause provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the proposed legislation except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company , as the case may, for this purpose. (Notes on Clauses) 151-A. Power of police to investigate.–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 (2 of 1974). 151-B. Certain offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.– Notwithstanding , anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973( 2 of 1974), an offence punishable under sections 135 to 140 or section 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.] 9. Moreover, even Section 151 of the Electricity Act does not restrict lodging of F.I.R., but it is in relation to the power of taking cognizance by the concerned court .It would be difficult to record a concluding finding for not lodging of F.I.R. in cases of commission of offence under the Electricity Act. Moreover, in the present case, F.I.R. was lodged on conclusion that the meter installed in the premises of both the petitioners were found tampered. Moreover, in the present case, F.I.R. was lodged on conclusion that the meter installed in the premises of both the petitioners were found tampered. Section 135 (1)(b)(c) & (d) of the Electricity Act,2003 conclusively suggests regarding application of offences in case of tampering of any meter. Section 135(1)(a)(b) (c) and (d) is quoted herein below:– 135. Theft of electricity.–[(1) whoever, dishonestly,- (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or (c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or (d) uses electricity through a tampered meter. 10. After noticing the aforesaid provision, it is evident that in case of detection of tampering of any meter penal provision under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is attracted. In the present case, as per F.I.R. itself, it is evident that firstly information was gathered by the officials regarding theft of electricity and thereafter a raid was conducted and during raid the allegation was found to be true and the meter was found tampered and thereafter F.I.R. was lodged. On perusal of the F.I.R., there is no doubt that cognizable offence was committed. Once cognizable offence is detected, there is no restriction in lodging F.I.R. and, as such, the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioners on Bhajanlal’s case (supra) has got no application. Similarly, the orders passed by the writ court i.e. Annexures -4 and 4/1 and Annexure-5 of the petition may not be help both the petitioners. In both the writ petitions, which was earlier filed by the petitioners, State was not made party and no opportunity was given to the Investigating Agency to place the matter or to support the case. Once F.I.R. was lodged, it was necessary to examine the materials in the F.I.R.. In both the writ petitions, which was earlier filed by the petitioners, State was not made party and no opportunity was given to the Investigating Agency to place the matter or to support the case. Once F.I.R. was lodged, it was necessary to examine the materials in the F.I.R.. Since the F.I.R. was not the subject matter before the writ court, the writ court has rightly not examined the same. Moreover, writ petitions were filed against punitive bill and not for quashing of F.I.R. Before parting with the order, it is necessary to notice Section 151-A and 151-B of the Electricity Act. Section 151-A prescribes regarding power of the police to investigate the offences punishable under the Electricity Act and certainly offences under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Electricity Act has been considered as cognizable offence. Once a cognizable offence is detected then in that event, police was empowered to register an F.I.R. 11. Accordingly, in the present case, in view of the fact disclosed in the F.I.R. for cognizable offence, F.I.R. was lodged and there is no defect or error in the same. I do not find any ground for interference with the F.I.R. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.