JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 534 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1927 of 2008 including the order dated 28.09.2020 passed in Cr. Revision No. 119 of 2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh confirmed the order dated 12.01.2015 passed in Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. 2108 of 2013 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh allowed the protest petition filed by the opposite party no. 2 and took cognizance against the petitioner for having committed offences punishable under Sections 126, 135 and 138 of Electricity Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the partner of M/s. Sheo Shakti Cement Industries used four number of duplicate seals and committed theft of electricity to the tune of Rs. 73,92,000/- 4. It is submitted by Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-2, the copy of which is kept at page no. 26-27 and particularly to page no. 27 under the heading details of new seals affixed under the role secondary terminal cover, it is submitted that on 19.02.2008 a new meter was installed by the officials of the opposite party no. 2 and they mentioned the number of seals which were later on alleged by the opposite party no. 2 itself in the FIR to be duplicate ones. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 29.04.2008 inspection by electricity board was conducted wherein modem of meter with SIM card was installed. During the said inspection and no pilferage was found by the officers of the electricity board. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 18.10.2008, the I.O. of the case made the application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate requesting therein to make an enquiry from the company in the name and style of Safcon Seals Private Limited in order to ascertain the genuineness of the said seals and the said company vide Annexure-4 at page no. 32 intimated the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the four seals alleged to be duplicate ones were in fact, genuine seals which were supplied by the said company to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Hazaribagh under their different invoices. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation against the petitioner made out in the FIR was false and baseless and final form was submitted by police without sending up the petitioner for trial and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh vide its order dated 05.07.2010 on receipt of the final form; dropped the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner. But after lapse of three years, a protest petition was filed by the opposite party no. 2, wherein without bringing any fresh evidence on record; the finding of the final form which was accepted by the court was controverted but without questioning the contents of the letter dated 24.02.2009 of M/s. Safcon Seals Private Limited, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner allowed the protest petition filed by the opposite party no. 2 merely relying upon the statement of the witnesses who are officers of the opposite party no. 2-electricity board; who were present at the time of inspection. Though the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2015 before the Principal District Judge but the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh without considering the fact and without considering the points raised in the revision petition dismissed the criminal revision. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provision of Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which envisages regarding the constitution of special courts for trying cases under the offences committed under the said Electricity Act, 2003, and in view of the existence of the Special Court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought not to have entertained the protest cum complaint petition and ought to have returned the final form to the competent court. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 534 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1927 of 2008 including the order dated 28.09.2020 passed in Cr. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 534 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1927 of 2008 including the order dated 28.09.2020 passed in Cr. Revision No. 119 of 2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh confirmed the order dated 12.01.2015 passed in Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. 2108 of 2013 be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of JBVNL-opposite party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and the order by which cognizance for the offence has been taken by the learned Magistrate as well as the order passed in the criminal revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submits that as mentioned in the inspection report at serial no. IV under the remarks of the inspection report, the copy of which has been kept at page no. 23 of the brief since it has been mentioned therein that after opening the secondary terminal cover of CTPT, CT terminals were found shorted by two number of copper wire and the same were removed and placed in sealed cover as exhibit after photograph, hence even if it is accepted that the four seals which were put on the secondary cover of CTPT were intact, still the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code is made out merely on the ground that CT terminals were found shorted by two number of copper wire. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the opposite party no. 2 has no knowledge about the Annexure-4 of the brief, which is kept at page no. 32 which is the report submitted by Safcon Seals Private Limited to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, even though the opposite party no. 2 was appearing in the learned trial court in the said Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 534 of 2008. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the I.O. did not examine any of the officers of the opposite party no. 2-company during the investigation of the case. 2 was appearing in the learned trial court in the said Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 534 of 2008. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the I.O. did not examine any of the officers of the opposite party no. 2-company during the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has rightly found prima facie case for the offences punishable under the penal provision of the Electricity Act and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh has also rightly dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2015. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that in the criminal revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh referred to Section 465 of Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that the irregularity is curable and for the purpose of Section 465 of Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no distinction between an illegality and irregularity as both are curable and the sole criteria is whether the defect has occasioned on failure of justice or not and went on to observe that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order adopting all the procedure as enumerated in law and applied judicial mind and it did not find any illegality in the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and dismissed the criminal revision. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the main allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used four duplicate seals in the secondary cover and upon opening of the CTPT cover, it was found that CT terminals were shorted by two number of copper wires but after going through the materials in the record, it remain uncontroverted that four seals alleged to be duplicate ones were the same seals which were installed by the officers of the opposite party no. 2 as is evident from the installation report, a copy of which has been kept at page no. 26 and 27 (Annexure-2). 2 as is evident from the installation report, a copy of which has been kept at page no. 26 and 27 (Annexure-2). It also remains undisputed that Safcon Seals Private Limited has intimated the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh that all the four seals stated to be duplicate ones were in fact genuine seals and were supplied to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Hazaribagh. It also remains uncontroverted that the electricity line concerned was an 11 kv/110v line and as mentioned in the final report submitted by the police, the independent witnesses have stated that it is not possible to tamper with such secondary terminal when power is going through the wire. 8. Now once the four seals which were stated to be duplicate were found to be genuine as is evident from the documents available in the record itself, so, it falsifies the case of the opposite party no. 2 that the secondary terminal was ever opened by the petitioner for shorting the CT terminal with copper wire. Further, as the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was functional certainly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh ought not to have taken cognizance for the offence. The fact also remains undisputed that the petitioner was living at Delhi for about three years prior to the alleged occurrence, and there is no allegation against him of his personal involvement in the offence alleged. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of the court and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 534 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1927 of 2008 including the order dated 28.09.2020 passed in Cr. Revision No. 119 of 2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh confirmed order dated 12.01.2015 passed in Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. 2108 of 2013 in the interest of justice be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 534 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1927 of 2008 including the order dated 28.09.2020 passed in Cr. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 534 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1927 of 2008 including the order dated 28.09.2020 passed in Cr. Revision No. 119 of 2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh confirmed order dated 12.01.2015 passed in Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. 2108 of 2013 is quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.