ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 242 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 2240 of 2008 registered for the offences punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 2. An F.I.R. was instituted in which it was alleged that the factory premises of the petitioner was inspected on 27.6.2008 wherein the seal of the meter was found tampered. It is alleged that by tampering the meter, the consumer had prevented the actual consumption which caused huge loss to Board (J.S.E.B.) due to pilferage of electricity. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 242 of 2008 was instituted. 3. Heard Mr. M. S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Choudhary, learned APP appearing for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that although the F.I.R. was instituted on 27.6.2008, but till date charge-sheet has not been submitted and therefore the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed as no cognizance could be taken beyond the prescribed period of limitation, as envisaged u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Learned senior counsel submits that the complainant is not authorised to institute an F.I.R. in view of the Notification dated 02.09.2004. It has also been submitted that the assessment of the loss is being considered by the Board u/s 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 and no case of theft of electricity is made out in view of the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code (Amendment) Regulation 2010. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that tampering of meter has not been corroborated by the consumption pattern of the consumer and such circumstances do not invite criminal prosecution. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand has submitted that after institution of the F.I.R., the investigation has not concluded and therefore it would be premature to consider the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand has submitted that after institution of the F.I.R., the investigation has not concluded and therefore it would be premature to consider the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The preliminary issue which has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is with respect to the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and since the F.I.R. was instituted in the year 2008 and in view of the punishment prescribed under the provisions of the I.P.C. mentioned in the F.I.R. itself the learned court below is precluded from taking cognizance, even if charge-sheet is submitted against the petitioner. The issue which has been raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Japani Sahooo v. Chandra Sehkhar Mohanty, reported in 2007 (4) East CrC 170(SC), wherein it was held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by a Court. This view subsequently has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular reported in (2014) 2 SCC 102 . 7. Admittedly the raid was conducted on 27.6.2008 and on the same date the F.I.R. was instituted and in such circumstances therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. got negated. Reference by the learned senior counsel has been made to the Electricity Supply Code (Amendment) Regulation 2010 in which clause 15.8 (vii) states that no case of theft shall be booked on account of tampering of the meter unless corroborated by the consumption pattern of the consumer. In this case nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the F.I.R. has culminated in submission of charge-sheet. The regulation which has been referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner can only be considered if in course of investigation, the consumption pattern of the consumer is also verified. In this case nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the F.I.R. has culminated in submission of charge-sheet. The regulation which has been referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner can only be considered if in course of investigation, the consumption pattern of the consumer is also verified. It would be premature at this stage to take into consideration clause 15.8 of the Electricity Supply Code (Amendment) Regulation 2010. So far as the contention of the petitioner with respect to the opposite party No. 2 being not authorised, it has been categorically stated at para-10 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 that he was fully authorised for disconnection of supply of electricity and lodging of complaint in the police station on detection of theft of electricity. In the teeth of such denial made by the opposite party No. 2 this Court in a proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a roving enquiry to come to a conclusion more so as it appears that the investigation is still pending. 8. As a cumulative result of the discussion made herein above, I do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.