JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Petitioners vide instant petition invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 751/2012 Special, pending before Special Judge (Electricity Act), Morena, arising out of private complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that in the year 2011 the petitioner was posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Banmore under Urban Administration Department of Government of MP. The respondent No.2 had instituted a private complaint under Section 135(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 before Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003) to the effect that the petitioner was illegally using electricity by directly installing motor of 10 HP for irrigating the field and supplying water to different houses. Along with the complaint the complainant filed Form No. IV/Panchnama/Spot Inspection Report and Form No.V/Final Assessment Order datd 17.3.2011 showing the theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.1,69,367/-. On the said complaint, notices/bailable warrants/non-bailable warrants were issued to the petitioner, in compliance whereof the petitioner appeared before the concerning Court. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the private complaint instituted against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint is filed on the basis of wrong facts. The petitioner has acted in the interest of public. The so-called panchnama prepared by the respondent No.2 is false as it is lacking signature of the consumer and the final assessment order is the result of colourable exercise and arbitrariness of the respondents. No motor was recovered from the spot and merely on the basis of allegation, the complaint deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that prima facie there are sufficient material available against the petitioner and no case for interference by this Court is made out. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available documents. 6. In Form No. IV/Panchnama/Spot Inspection Report (Annexure P/2), in clause No.8 it is mentioned as under :- 7. It is apparent from the aforesaid that no electric meter was installed and electricity was being used without any legal connection for irrigation of fields and supply of water to different houses, therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the complaint registered against the present petitioner is false. 8. In Amit kapoor Vs. It is apparent from the aforesaid that no electric meter was installed and electricity was being used without any legal connection for irrigation of fields and supply of water to different houses, therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the complaint registered against the present petitioner is false. 8. In Amit kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr,2012 8 SCC 460 , the Hon. Apex Court has observed as under:- 27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 CrPC should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2 The court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3 The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. 27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of CrPC or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused. 27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender. 27.7. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. 27.8. 27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender. 27.7. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. 27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a civil wrong with no element of criminality and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.10.It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.11.Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. 27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The court has to consider the record and documents annexed with by the prosecution. 27.13.Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 27.14.Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2)CrPC, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge. 27.15.Coupled with any or all of the above, where the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of CrPC or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. 27.16.These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) are to be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the Court should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence." 9. The Court below has analysed the material for the purpose of finding out whether or not the prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The truthfulness of the statement or circumstances or documents of the prosecution cannot be questioned at this stage by the defence. The material on record discloses the grave suspicion. On the basis of the material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed an offence. At this stage there is no scope of interference by this Court. 10. In above view of the matter, I find no reason warranting any interference by this Court. Consequently, the petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information.