ORDER : 1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No.I-666 of 2010 registered before GUVNL Police Station, Dist.: Rajkot for offence punishable under Sections 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners. 2. Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are brothers and are in the same family business; they have constituted a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the firm is under the name and style of M/s. J.K. Stone Crusher. The petitioners have established a stone crushing unit at Survey No.74 paiki, village Dharampur, Taluka, Morbi, Dist. Rajkot; the unit has been established in the year 1998. 2.1 Advocate Mr.Dagli submits that the petitioners had applied for industrial electric power connection for the said unit before the office of the Dy. Executive Engineer, Mobvi (Rural) Sub - Division, Morbi and a fully automatic stone crushing plant was installed at the premises. The petitioners have their business running in the family and more than one firm have been established, as a diversion of the business with separate firms. 2.2 Advocate Mr. Dagli submits that the stone crushing unit at the premises was established for the purpose of providing raw materials to the other firms to carry out the activities. The materials produced in the premises were never meant for commercial venture and therefore the consumption pattern of the electricity of the petitioner’s firm remained static, which Mr. Dagli submitted, could be examined from the year wise consumption bills. Mr. Dagli stated that the average annual consumption of power supply by the firm was from Rs.4 Lakhs to 6 Lakhs and in few of years, the consumption bill remained Rs.4 Lakhs since other firm had no sufficient quantum of works; while sister concerns was having good business, and the turn out of the firm belonging to the petitioners remained less burdened or the turn out of the petitioners’ firm would be in accordance to the burden of work of the sister concern. Mr. Mr. Dagli submitted that the power consumption bills for the last 3 preceding years supports the case, which shows the consumption pattern of the petitioners' firm M/s.J.K. Stone Crusher. 2.3 Advocate Mr.Dagli submits that the petitioners' firm has a sanctioned load of 94 KWLTP- 3 Tariff connection. He submits that the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board has been divided into 5 different companies wherein four are distribution companies, while one is generating company and the Saurashtra region is controlled by the company named Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited popularly known as PGVCL and the petitioners are consumer with Registration No.34404/00170/3-LTP-3. 2.4 Advocate Mr.Dagli submitted that the premises of the petitioners was inspected on March 16, 2010 and in the inspection memo, the displayed reading of KVARh load and CF KVRh was 949672.95, and thereafter MRI data was retrieved, which Mr.Dagli submitted that was in conformity with the circular issued by the company dated February 9, 2010, and hence, the connection was disconnected and meter was removed, and taken away by the officers of the company. Mr.Dagli, states that the inspection memo shows that all seals affixed on the main meter box, connecting meter box, terminal covers were in order. It has been recorded that the connected load was 113.5 HP which is equivalent to 86.83 KW. 2.5 Mr.Dagli submits that the inspection report of the place of site of removing and sealing the meter has been recorded by the officers of the respondent company on March 16, 2010. The meter supplied by M/s. Larsen & Toubro having meter serial number 05335065 for the capacity of 200/5 AMPs. He submits that the display data recorded showed KWH 6863.4 KVARh log 101209.10 and KVARh load 9496729.5; KVAH 1238460 and F- 9496729.50 KWH. Mr Dagli submitted that after recording said data, the inspecting officer found that since the reading was 949672.95, the circuit of the meter is tampered and therefore, there is case of theft. 2.6 Mr.Dagli submitted that such case came to be registered even beyond the period of limitation noted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and merely on the basis of one communication forwarded by PGVCL bearing No.PGVCL/Tech-2/5919 dated February 9, 2010, the FIR was registered. 2.7. Mr. 2.6 Mr.Dagli submitted that such case came to be registered even beyond the period of limitation noted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and merely on the basis of one communication forwarded by PGVCL bearing No.PGVCL/Tech-2/5919 dated February 9, 2010, the FIR was registered. 2.7. Mr. Dagli submits that after the incident, the petitioners applied for copy of the data retrieved by the respondent company from its Meter Reading Instrument by application dated January 19, 2010 from the office of Dy. Executive Engineer, Morbi Sub- Division and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners had been provided data retrieved from MRI. Mr.Dagli submits that there would be no case of any tampering. The petitioners have been released electric connection by the erstwhile Board in the year 1996. From 1998 till 2010, there is not a single case of theft of electrical energy against the firm owned by the petitioners. Even during the tenure of the GEB, the petitioners were never issued any warning nor there was any case of any tampering with the meter instrument or diverting the power or obstructing correct recording of the power consumption, and the firm was established by its partners as a captive unit so as to smoothen the business of the other firms which were engaged in construction of roads and buildings, and whatever materials were required by way of rubbel made from crushed stones were supplied by Firm. The owner of the premises and the machinery is the firm, while the unit is operated by the sister concern. Mr. Dagil submitted that FIR lodged is with cryptic information that the Firm has committed a theft of electrical energy to the tune of Rs.32,50,954/-. While the FIR is lodged only on the basis of the Circular dated 09.02.2010, wherein it is directed that if there is any fault like figure displaying 949672,95' appears in the cumulative energy register, than it would be assumed to be the case of theft. 2.8 Mr.Dagli submitted that what is the basis and criteria of the Circular is not known to the petitioners and states that consumption of power for the last three years had remained static and constant and mere Circular issued by the Corporate Office could not be made ground to prosecute the petitioners under Section 135 of the Act without any application of mind. 3. 3. Ms.Maya Desai, learned advocate for respondent No.2 submits that the present criminal application was filed in the year 2010 and was dismissed on 27.07.2011 by default of the Advocate, and was restored on 10.7.2015; continuously the counsel for the petitioners remained absent and in the year 2017, the matter was restored again on its original file on 11.10.2017, and states that the delay of seven years on the part of the petitioners was the lethargic approach. 3.1 Ms. Desai submitted that the premises of petitioners was inspected on 16.3.2010 and meter display showed reading of KVARH load and CFKVRH showed reading of 949672.95 and thereupon as per circular dated 09.02.2010, meter was disconnected and was removed; the correct bill for Rs.33,60,954/- was issued to the petitioners. 3.2 Ms.Desai submitted that Site Inspection Rojkam was also prepared on the same day. the meter alongwith data was sent for analysis to Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The analysis report dated 26.04.2010 shows that - "Meter may be subjected to some external means which has made the meter into hanged condition, reason may be to prevent the meter to log hourly energy consumption data and appearance of value in cumulative energy register like 9496729.5. This resulted in the prevention of registering of actual energy." Thus, Ms. Desai submitted that it was clear that some external device was used and meter was in hanged condition and actual energy consumption was not reflected in the meter. She further submitted that in Rajkot District and other Districts of Saurashtra many cases were reported, which shows the meter reading like FKWH 949672 and therefore Circular dated 09.02.2010 was issued. 3.3. Ms. Desai has referred to some identical case and stated that in many cases, suits were filed and appeals are before this Court. She stated that in the year 2010 many identical cases were detected and cases were filed before the District Court and this Court. Thus, she states that the present case is clear case of theft of energy. 3.4 Ms. Desai submitted that by use of external device, these meters would get hanged and prevents the meter to log hourly energy consumption data and the appearance of value in cumulative energy would register like 9496729.5 and that has resulted into prevention of registering of actual energy. 4. 3.4 Ms. Desai submitted that by use of external device, these meters would get hanged and prevents the meter to log hourly energy consumption data and the appearance of value in cumulative energy would register like 9496729.5 and that has resulted into prevention of registering of actual energy. 4. The analysis report for the LT Static Meter with Sr.No.05335065 was 3Ph-4W, 3X240, 200/5A, Class 1.0, suggests that on receiving the data from the Meter, the data analysis found the observation that the Meter may be subjected to some external means, which has lead the meter into hanged condition. On 16.03.2010, the inspection was recorded that the cable did not find any external connection. The report noted that there was no tampering with the cable. The seal on the meter box was found intact and after the inspection, the seal was removed from the poll and MMB was opened. The meter reading as KWH (Unit) on that day was found as 68636.A, while earlier it was noted as 6145L. The cumulative maximum demand is shown as 974.4, and tampered events noted as 420. 5. The glass on the meter was in a good condition while body cover in the meter was even found not tampered. The terminal cover seal was found intact while the load test was not noted. On checking the meter correction, the conclusion was, the meter display reading showed KVAVM load and CFKV as 94972.5. On the basis of Circular dated 09.02.2010 being No. PGVCL/Tech-2/5919, the electricity connection was disconnected. The representative of consumer had put-up the signature noting the endorsement that they had not tampered the meter. 5.1. The Letter No.PGVCL/Tech.2/5919 dated 09.02.2010 of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, Paschim Gujarat Vij Seva Sadan Office, Nava Mava Mian Road, Laxminagar, Rajkot is with the subject of ‘Tempering of LT Static Meters by external device and declaration of theft thereof’. As per report of Field Officers regarding modus operandi of tampering of LT Static meters by using external device that deliberately leads meter electronic circuit main function and hangs the meter and thereby prevents meter to record energy consumption. As per report of Field Officers regarding modus operandi of tampering of LT Static meters by using external device that deliberately leads meter electronic circuit main function and hangs the meter and thereby prevents meter to record energy consumption. The communication notes that the common pattern observed in MRI data of meters tempered with such external develop is as (i) in hourly load survey date, hourly consumption data is missing for the tampered period while meter is under hanged condition; (ii) value like “949672.95” appears in any of the cumulative energy register (Forward or severs KN, KVA KVARH-lag or KVARAH-lead in L&T make meters and (iii) A letters records anomaly and TXDT appears in the anomaly string (L&T make meters). The communication thus states that such cases shall be processed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the action would be the power supply of the consumer shall be disconnected till the consumer declares and identifies the supplier of tampering instrument. The GOG notification of compounding the offence to be scrupulously followed, and the connection shall be booked under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and the arrangement shall be made accordingly. 6. It is to be noted that the communication refers to the consequences as terminating the power supply till the consumer declares and identifies the supplier of tampering instrument. It is not the case of the Company that the meter which was found, was not one which was installed by the Company. The meter is L&T make. As per the petitioners, M/s. J.K.Stone Crusher was established in the year 1998, at the relevant time the industrial electric power connection for the said was applied before the Dy. Executive Engineer, Morbi Sub-Division, Morbi. The unit was consuming the electricity, and as per the petitioner, the consumption pattern remain almost the same in all the years. The Firm was sanctioned the load of 94KW-LTP-3 Tariff connection, which has consumer No.34404/00170/3-LTP-3. 6.1 There is no report of any tampering by the petitioners, merely only on the basis of the Circular, the FIR has been lodged. The lab report, roznama, MRI report and the main feder data are consistent and no loss of consumption has been found. The Firm was sanctioned the load of 94KW-LTP-3 Tariff connection, which has consumer No.34404/00170/3-LTP-3. 6.1 There is no report of any tampering by the petitioners, merely only on the basis of the Circular, the FIR has been lodged. The lab report, roznama, MRI report and the main feder data are consistent and no loss of consumption has been found. Under what circumstances the meter had started reflecting the data as 949672.95, is for the Company itself to verify and why such meter, without any tampering recorded, was found installed, where there is no such allegation of any implantation of external device on meter which was observed in inspection on 16.03.2010. 7. As per the circular of the Company, such kind of meters were found in almost the whole of the region, and thus the letter dated 09.02.2010 reflects the state of affairs in the area regarding such meters; and when in absence of any cause of tampering the meters, when there is no external device found on the date of inspection, the consumer cannot be found at fault. Only on the basis of Circular without actual recording of theft of electricity, no such prosecution could be permitted. Further analysis report of the L&T dated 26.04.2020 does not reflect that the meter was tested in the Lab, as agreed by the consumer. The agreement of the petitioner as a consumer is essential for testing the meter at the laboratory of the Corporation or some independent agency. The said fact has not been brought on record. The consumer would have right to get the meter tested with the independent agency, therefore the authorities have a duty to apprise the consumer of the said fact. 8. Further, here in this case, the inspection was on 16.03.2010, while the complaint was lodged on 19.03.2010 at about 22.45 hours. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 makes a provision that any such case of lodging the complaint in the commission of the offence with the Police Station have in the jurisdiction should be within 24 hours from the time of such disconnection. In the present case, there is delay of about 48 hours and FIR is lodged after about 72 hours. 9. In the present case, there is delay of about 48 hours and FIR is lodged after about 72 hours. 9. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR (1992) SC 604, the Apex Court formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the court. It was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of circumstances in which such power could be exercised. The Apex Court made the following observations:- “8.1. It was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of circumstances in which such power could be exercised. The Apex Court made the following observations:- “8.1. In the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9.1. Considering the judgment laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the present FIR, which is abuse of process of Court and does not disclose commission of any offence or make out any case against the petitioners should not be permitted to stand and require to be quashed at the initial stage. 10. Resultantly, the present application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-666 of 2010 registered before GUVNL Police Station, Dist.: Rajkot and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners.