Gujarat High Court
Vedprakash Devkinandan Chiripal vs State Of Gujarat on 4 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 17/06/2025
Pronounced On : 04/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17749 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VEDPRAKASH DEVKINANDAN CHIRIPAL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC for the following reliefs:-
"a.To quash theF.I.R. Cr-ll 72 Of 2013 registered with G.U.V.N.L. Police Station, Surat (Previously known as G.E.B Police Station, South Zone, Surat)[Annexure - AJ and the investigation pursuant thereto in the interest of Justice, b. Pending admission and final hearing, be further pleased to stay proceedings/investigation of F.I.R. Cr-II 72 Of 2013 registered with G.U.V.N.L. Police Station, Surat (Previously known as G.E.B Police Station, South Zone, Surat) (Annexure- A)."Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined FACTS RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE PRESENT PETITION ARE AS UNDER:-
2. The petitioners are Trustees of the Milestone Education Trust, (for short, "Turst") which manages Shanti Asiatic School. In 2010, the Trust applied for and was granted a temporary electricity connection by DGVCL, which remained operative until 17.10.2012. Upon disconnection, the meter was found in working condition. Subsequently, the Trust applied for a permanent connection on 17.12.2012, following which a transformer was installed. The petitioners allege that the transformer was non-functional, compelling the Trust to operate the school via generator to ensure uninterrupted academic activity. It is further alleged that electrical wiring was laid between the transformer and generator. However, DGVCL accused the Trust of unauthorized use of electricity and raised a demand notice, initially dated 18.01.2013, claiming Rs. 62,49,722.65/- towards usage and Rs. 5,76,650/- as compounding charges, later revised on 15.02.2013 to Rs. 76,72,864.91/- and Rs. 10,88,000/- respectively.
2.1. Aggrieved, the Trust filed a civil suit challenging the supplementary bill and seeking interim relief, which was conditionally allowed on the deposit of Rs. 80 lakhs. The Trust then approached this Hon'ble Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 11321 of 2013, in which, by order dated 01.10.2013, this Court directed DGVCL to restore electricity supply upon payment of Rs. 60 lakhs, which was duly complied with. The civil suit remains pending. The Trust contends that the bill was unjustified as it covered a period of one year, despite the transformer being installed only on 17.12.2012 and the raid being conducted on Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined 17.01.2013, thereby suggesting a billing period of just one month. Additionally, the Trust asserts that the raid was carried out in an arbitrary manner, and signatures of school authorities were allegedly obtained under duress.
2.2. The Trust attempted to compound the offence and tendered a demand draft of Rs. 5,76,650/- to DGVCL as per its original calculation, but the same was refused on the ground that higher amounts were outstanding. The authorities allegedly assured the Trust that upon payment, the matter would be closed as compounded. However, despite compliance under protest, the Trust was later served with summons under Sections 91 and 160 of the CrPC by the DGVCL Police Station. The petitioners contend that the invocation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process, particularly when the dispute is essentially civil in nature and the Trust is willing to settle compounding charges subject to the outcome of pending civil proceedings.
SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS:-
3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Asim Pandya, assisted by learned advocate Jay S. Shah appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the supplementary electricity bill issued by the private respondent consequent upon inspection of the petitioners' electricity connection has been contested through proceedings instituted before the Special Court. The impugned supplementary bill including compounding charges amounting to Rs. 87,60,849.91 was challenged, whereupon the learned Special Court granted interim relief by directing restoration of the petitioners' electricity connection, subject to the condition precedent that the petitioners Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined shall deposit a sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- with the respondent Electricity Company.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pandya further submitted that the aforesaid order passed by the Special Court was subsequently challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 11321 of 2013 before this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench, vide its order dated 1st October, 2013, modified direction regarding the quantum of deposit and substituted the same by directing deposit of a reduced amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- with the private respondent electricity company. The petitioners have duly complied with the directions contained in the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in its entirety and in accordance with the terms thereof.
3.2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pandya further submitted that a First Information Report was registered by an Officer of the private respondent, being C.R.-II 72 of 2013, pertaining to the identical inspection for which the impugned supplementary bill was raised. It is further contended that inasmuch as the petitioners have deposited a substantial sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- out of the total demand sum of Rs. 87,60,849.91, the criminal prosecution ought not to be permitted to continue against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the compounding charges as levied by respondent No. 2 and communicated to the petitioners vide formal notice; however, since the respondent company has declined to accept the compounding amount, the FIR in question remains uncompounded.
3.3. Learned Senior Counsel invited attention of this Court to Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and submitted that Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appropriate government or any officer duly authorized by the Government, namely the private respondent in the present case, is empowered to accept compounding amount from any consumer or person and may compound the offence in question.
3.4. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner-accused has deposited a substantial amount towards the supplementary bill, which amount also encompasses the compounding charges of Rs. 10,88,000/- along with part payment towards the supplementary bill amounting to Rs. 76,72,864.91. In view of the aforesaid, the FIR ought not to survive and deserves to be quashed on the ground that the offence stands compounded.
3.5. Upon the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pandya prayed that the present petition may be allowed.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
4. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya appearing for the Electricity Company strongly opposed the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pandya. She submitted that, as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, " the Act"), if upon inspection of any premises, the consumer is found indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, the Electricity Company is duly empowered to issue a supplementary bill--such liability is purely of civil nature. Referring to the provisions of Section 135 of the Act, learned advocate Ms. Bhaya submitted that if the inspection of the premises reveals that the consumer is undulged in unauthorized Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined abstraction or theft of electricity, then even an FIR can lawfully be registered for the offence of theft under Section 135 of the Act. 4.1. She further submitted that, as per the proviso to Section 135(1)(A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the officer of the Electricity Company to lodge an FIR within 24 hours from the time of disconnection of electricity supply.
4.2. Accordingly, learned advocate Ms. Bhaya contended that the petitioner, being a consumer, cannot seek quashment of the FIR merely on the ground that civil liability arising from the supplementary bill has been partly discharged on fulfilling interim order passed by this Court. She emphasized that such discharge does not absolve the petitioner of criminal liability, particularly under the provisions of Section 135 of the Act, which are penal in nature and independent of civil consequences.
4.3. She further submitted that the order passed by the Special Court in the civil suit, as modified by this Hon'ble Court in the Special Civil Application, pertains to civil proceedings wherein the civil liability of the petitioner has been challenged. Merely making partial payment pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Court towards the supplementary bill would not absolve the petitioner- consumer from facing criminal prosecution.
4.4. Learned advocate Ms. Bhaya further submitted that the powers and procedure for conducting trials by the Special Court are provided under Section 154 of the Act, and more particularly, sub- section (5) & (6) of Section 154 confers jurisdiction upon the Special Court to determine civil liability. Therefore, it cannot be legitimately contended that upon payment of certain sums towards the Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined supplementary bill, the FIR and consequential proceedings should be sustained.
4.5. Lastly, placing reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Harishbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 3656 of 2015, learned advocate Ms. Bhaya submitted that Section 152 of the Act employs the term "may," which confers discretion upon the Electricity Company to decide whether or not to compound the offence. The accused does not have an enforceable right to insist upon compounding of the offence.
4.6. Accordingly, in light of the above submissions, learned advocate Ms. Bhaya prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
5. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pandya submitted that since it is the petitioner-consumer's first offence as per Section 152(1) of the Act, 2003, ordinarily it should be compounded and since petitioner has already deposited the amount towards compounding charges, the offence ought to have been compounded in accordance with law.
5.1. Learned APP, adopting the submissions advanced by learned advocate Ms. Bhaya, opposed the petition and prayed that the present petition may not be entertained.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THE COURT:-
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and upon consideration of the factual matrix of the present case along with documents on record, it emerges that pursuant to the inspection of Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined the premises of the petitioner-consumer, the DGVCL (private respondent) found that the petitioner was allegedly indulging in unauthorized use of electricity. Initially, a supplementary bill amounting to Rs. 62,49,700.65 was issued based on the assessment carried out under Section 126 of the Act, along with compounding charges of Rs. 5,76,650/-, levied by way of penalty. Subsequently, the bill was revised to Rs. 76,72,864.91 and compouding charge was raised to Rs.10,88,000/-
6.1. The civil liability raised by issuance of the supplementary bill in exercise of powers under Section 126 of the Act, was challenged by the petitioner by instituting a civil suit before the Special Court, wherein an application for interim relief seeking reconnection of electricity supply was also made. The learned Special Court, while considering the said application, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- for restoration of the electricity connection. The said order of the learned Special Court was assailed by the petitioner by way of Special Civil Application, wherein the Coordinate Bench, vide oral order dated 01.10.2013, issued Rule and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 60,00,000/- in three equal installments. The Court further directed the electricity company to restore the temporary electricity connection upon compliance with the deposit schedule. This interim order came to be passed considering the fact that the petitioner-consumer is running an educational institution and the academic activities of the students were being hampered due to discontinuation of power supply.
6.2. The petitioner-consumer now seeks to compound the criminal proceedings on the ground that a substantial portion of the supplementary bill--i.e., Rs. 60,00,000/- has already been paid. It is Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined apposite to note that Section 126 of the Act empowers the electricity distribution company to raise an assessment bill in cases where unauthorized use of electricity is detected, and such assessment is subject to revision under Section 127 of the Act.It is civil liability. It is embarking civil liability.
6.3. However, Section 135 of the Act operates in a distinct domain, enabling the licensee to initiate criminal prosecution in cases involving theft of electricity. Furthermore, Section 154 of the Act outlines the procedure and powers of the Special Court to try such offences and begins with a non-obstante clause, thereby having an overriding effect. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 154 empower the Special Court to assess and determine the civil liability against the consumer.
6.4. For ready reference, the provisions of Section 154(5) and Section 154(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Section 154(5):- The Special Court shall determine the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if determined whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of civil court."
"Section 154(6):- In case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, shall be refunded by the Board orlicensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime lending Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment."
6.5. The aforesaid provision empowers the Special Court to determine the civil liability of the consumer or person concerned, in terms of monetary compensation for the theft of electricity, which shall not be less than twice the applicable tariff for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection. This provision authorize Special Court to determine civil liability in trial of offence under Section 135 of the Act regardless of assessment made under Section 126 of the Act. Accordingly, it is evident that the civil liability arising out of an assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is distinct and cannot be conflated with the criminal liability arising under Section 135 of the Act. A consumer cannot assert that payment of a substantial portion of the assessed amount under a supplementary bill extinguishes or absolves him of the criminal consequences under the Act, as both liabilities operate in different and independent spheres.
6.6. If the petitioner-consumer intends to compound the offence, he is obligated to comply with the specific compounding demand as determined and communicated by the electricity company. Merely offering to deposit a part-payment of the amount or relying on deposits made pursuant to civil proceedings does not entitle the accused to automatic compounding of the criminal case.
6.7. As such, in view of above, submission canvassed by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pandya found merit-less and restrictive. Aptly plain reading of Section 152 of the Electricity Act reveals that the Legislature has consciously used the word "may", thereby conferring Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17749/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined discretion upon the electricity company to either accept or refuse the compounding of the offence. It is, therefore, not a matter of right for the petitioner/consumer/accused to demand compounding of an offence under the said provision. This legal position has been succinctly dealt with and affirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harishbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel (supra), wherein it was observed as under: --
"It appears that the applicant herein is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for theft of electricity. The Electricity Company has raised a supplementary bill of rupees eleven thousand and odd. The applicant preferred an application under Section 152(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and prayed that he may be permitted to compound the offence, or rather, the Electricity Company be asked to compound the offence on payment of the requisite amount. Such application was ordered to be rejected. Being dissatisfied, the applicant has come up with this application.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, I do not find any error, not to speak of any error of law, in the impugned order. By now, it is well-settled that an accused cannot, as a matter of right, say that the Electricity Company should be asked to compound the offence. It is within the discretion of the Electricity Company, whether to go for compounding or not."
6.8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, and upon applying the aforementioned provisions, this Court finds no merit in the Petition. The petition is devoid of substance and accordingly stands DISMISSED.
7. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. Rule/Notice is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:37:22 IST 2025