Bombay High Court
Navin Prakashsingh Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Akot ... on 9 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10501-DB
J-apl852.20 final.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.852 OF 2020
Navin Prakashsingh Thakur,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Hirabai Plots, Gandhi Nagar,
Adarsha Colony, Akola,
Tq. and Distt. Akola. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., P.S. Akot File,
Akola, Tq. And Distt. Akola.
2. Sandip Rambhau Kayande,
Addl. Executive Engineer,
Flying Squad MAHAVITARAN
Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Nikhil Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Mr. A.M. Quazi, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 09th OCTOBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is an application seeking quashing and setting
aside of the First Information Report No.401/2020 filed by the
non-applicant No.2 at Police Station Akot File, Akola for the offence
punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. The F.I.R. is filed at the behest of respondent No.2. As
per the allegations in the said F.I.R. the applicant along with a
tenant, namely, Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj and one Rupali Wagh are
indulged in theft of electricity. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that
on 25.8.2020 at about 12.30 a.m. non-applicant No.2, who is
Additional Executive Engineer of the Flying Squad of the
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
(MSEDCL) inspected the premises belonging to the applicant.
During this inspection a person, namely, Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj
restrained them from entering the premises which prompted them
to check the electric meter. During the inspection it was found that
the applicant along with said Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj and one Rupali
Nandkishor Wagh has intentionally loosened the nut-bolt of the
meter so that the display of consumption should be zero.
Accordingly, it was found that said persons have unauthorizedly
tampered with the electric meter and connection and have
committed theft of electricity amounting of Rs.5,36,856/- for the
previous five months. The compounding charges were accordingly
assessed to Rs.8,04,200/-. Thus, an offence under Section 135 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 was clamped against the accused persons
and a First Information Report was lodged. It is this First
Information Report which is challenged in the present application.
4. We have heard Mr. J.B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the
applicant, Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the non-applicant No.1 and Mr. A.M. Quazi, learned counsel for non-
applicant No.2/first informant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is a Proprietor of a firm M/s. Shri Saibaba Enterprises,
who is owner of the premises bearing Plot No.M-228, at MIDC
Phase-4, Akola. Out of said portion the applicant had leased out a
portion admeasuring 3000 Sq. ft and further area of 2500 Sq. ft. to
said Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj by a rent agreement which was entered
into on 31st January, 2020.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant took us through
the rent agreement which came into effect from 1 st February, 2020
and the lease expired on 31.12.2020. As per the stipulations in the
said agreement the tenant said Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj was
permitted to use the electricity from the meter bearing Consumer
No.310219043440 of 75 HP. However, it was on a condition that
said tenant would not indulge in any unauthorized or illegal use of
electricity and if so done in that case he shall be responsible for the
said act of unauthorized use. He also submits that spot inspection
report prepared by the non-applicant No.2 clearly states that said
tenant is using the meter for consumption of electricity. It is,
therefore his submission that said tenant and one Rupali Wagh,
who had tampered with the meter and thus committed the offence
and the applicant is only being implicated for no reason.
7. It is his further submission that the said tenant has paid
amount as per final demand note issued by non-applicant No.2.
But, however, as the compounding charges are not paid, the F.I.R.
is lodged even against the applicant. He has further submitted that
the tenant has thus breached the terms of rent agreement which
compelled the applicant/landlord to issue a legal notice to him
terminating the rent agreement. He has also placed on record
judgment and decree of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Akola in Small Cause Case No.03/2021. The suit filed by the
applicant was decreed and the tenant has been directed to hand
over vacant possession of the suit premises within three months.
8. On the other hand, learned learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1 and learned counsel for the
non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the prayer made by the
learned counsel for the applicant for quashing of the First
Information Report. In the submission of Mr. A.M. Quazi the
interse agreement between the landlord and tenant would not be
binding on a licensee like MSEDCL. He further submits that the
letter written by the applicant seeking details of the procedure to
sublet is to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
and, therefore, cannot be a pointer to the fact to gaudge the
bona fides of the applicant. He further submits that even though
the First Information Report in question points out the theft of
electricity for the past five months, the fact as to whether the theft
of electricity was continued for a longer period than that would
require evidence and, therefore, quashing of First Information
Report at such nascent stage would not be proper. It is, therefore,
his submission that this is not a fit case to exercise inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for
quashing the First Information Report.
9. In the backdrop of these facts we have perused the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to certain provisions of
Electricity Act 2003. The Electricity Act, 2003 was brought in force
to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission,
distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking
measures conductive to development of electricity industry,
promoting competition therein, protecting interest of consumers
and supply of electricity to all areas. It further provided for
rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies
regarding subsidy, promotion of efficient and environmentally
beniging policies and for other matters incidental thereto. Section
2(15) defines "Consumer" to be any person who is supplied with
electricity for his own use by a licensee or the government or by any
other person engaged in the business of supplying the electricity to
the public under the said Act or under any other law for the time
being in force. It further includes any person whose premises are
for the time being connected for the purposes of receiving electricity
with a works of a licensee. Section 135 of the Electricity Act finds
place in Part XIV of the Act titled as 'offences and penalties'.
Section 135 provides for theft of electricity and begins with the
word 'Whoever, dishonestly', -
a........
b.........
c..........
d..........
10. After perusal of definition of consumer and the
wording of Section 135, in our opinion there is a clear distinction
between the two and a person committing theft of electricity need
not necessarily be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(15)
of the Act. It is more so since the consumer, contemplates a
consumer who is being supplied with electricity and a person
committing theft can be any person, obviously including a
consumer. It is thus clear that theft of electricity can be committed
even by a person who is not a consumer.
11. The controversy in the present matter needs to be
appreciated in the background of these facts emerging from the
legal provisions. From the documents filed on record it can be said
that said Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj was a tenant of the present
applicant and was let out a portion as mentioned in the lease
agreement. It can further be seen that the fact that said tenant was
a user is fortified by the spot inspection report prepared by the
non-applicant No.2 which clearly states the name of owner as the
applicant and user as said tenant. It can thus be inferred that even
the non-applicant No.2 found that it was the said tenant who was
using the electricity from the meter in question. It can further be
seen that the applicant vide letter dated 9.10.2020 addressed to the
non-applicant No.2 clearly stated that the electricity supply to the
meter should be disconnected on a permanent basis with immediate
effect so as to restrict the misuse of electricity. It can also be seen
that the applicant/landlord had filed a suit before the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Akola which was decreed on 30 th November, 2021.
In the said judgment and decree the tenant i.e. the user of the
premises was directed to handover vacant possession of the
tenanted premises. As can be seen from the tenancy agreement
placed on record it was the said tenant who was using electricity
from the consumer number mentioned supra and it was further his
obligation that he should not indulge in any unauthorized use or
electricity. From all these aspects it can be inferred that the
applicant is nowhere concerned with theft of electricity, since it was
the tenant who was consuming the electricity from the said meter.
The applicant cannot be made vicariously liable in view of the
material referred above in absence of a specific provision in the
Electricity Act, 2003.
12. The offence registered against the applicant under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is, therefore, nothing but an
abuse of process of law since except for the fact that he is the owner
of the premises, there is nothing to connect him with the alleged
offence. Thus, from the averments in the F.I.R. no offence is made
out as far as present applicant is concerned. Therefore, continuance
of criminal proceedings against the applicant would be an abuse of
process of law and as per the guidelines mentioned in State of
Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR
1992 SC 604, In para No.105, sub-paras 1 to 5 are reproduced as
under :
"1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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.
5. 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."
13. In the light of these facts, we are of the opinion that
this is a fit case to exercise inherent powers and quash the F.I.R. as
far as applicant is concerned. Accordingly, we proceed to pass
following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report bearing No.401/2020,
registered with Police Station Akot File, District Akola for the
offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is
hereby quash as far as the applicant is concerned.
(iii) Application is disposed of accordingly.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/10/2025 16:38:42
