Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hansraja vs Mp Vidyut Bitaran Co Ltd on 24 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1811
1 MCRC-1495-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 24th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1495 of 2025
HANSRAJA
Versus
MP VIDYUT BITARAN CO LTD
Appearance:
Shri Harshvardhan Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of
B.N.S.S., 2023, has been filed for quashment of further proceedings in
Special Case No.603/2022 filed under Section 138 of Electricity Act, 2003.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondent filed a
complaint under Section 138 of Electricity Act on the ground that electricity
connection was issued in the name of Kailash Joshi which is being used by
applicant. The outstanding electricity consumption amount is not being paid
and as such it has become Rs.1,47,641/-. Notices were also issued for
payment of the same. On 04.12.2020, during inspection, applicant was
directed to pay outstanding electricity amount. However, applicant refused to
pay the outstanding amount and accordingly, the electricity connection was
disconnected on the very same day. On 05.04.2021, when the officers of the
electricity department went to the spot then they found that applicant has
illegally connected the electricity connection and is using electricity,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1811
2 MCRC-1495-2025
accordingly, Panchnama was prepared. Again on 10.06.2021, a notice was
issued to deposit the outstanding electricity amount but the same was not
done and accordingly complaint was filed.
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that electricity meter has
been installed in an official accommodation. Earlier, it was allotted to one
Kailash Joshi who got the connection in his name. After Kailash Joshi retired
from service, the house has been allotted to the husband of applicant.
Applicant is residing in her village with occasional visits to the house in
question. However, it was fairly conceded that on the date of inspection, she
alone was present in her house.
4. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
5. The contentions of applicant are two-fold; No.1 if applicant has
failed to pay outstanding electricity charges then it would not be an offence
punishable under Section 138 of Electricity Act, 2003, and in fact the house
in question has been allotted to her husband and therefore she cannot be
made an accused.
Admittedly, applicant was in the house when inspection was carried
out. It is not the case of applicant that her husband is exclusively residing in
the house in question. Accordingly, counsel for applicant was directed to
point out the circumstances which may indicate that applicant is not residing
in the house in question and it is in exclusive possession of her husband.
Counsel for applicant fairly conceded that there is no pleading and proof that
applicant is not residing in the house and the house in question is in
exclusive possession of her husband. However, it was fairly conceded that at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1811
3 MCRC-1495-2025
the time of inspection applicant was all alone in the house and therefore it is
submitted that under an impression that applicant is exclusively residing in
the house, the proceedings have been initiated.
6. As per the complaint, it is clear that not only the electricity charges
are not being paid but it is also clear that when electricity connection was
disconnected then again the same was illegally reconnected by applicant.
Illegally reconnecting electricity connection even after it was disconnected
by the electricity department would certainly fall within the definition of
theft. The defences which have been taken by applicant are based on
disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while
exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. In the light of judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases
of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337 , State of Tamil
Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 , Ajay Kumar Das
v. State of Jharkhand , reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 , Mohd. Akram
Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 , State of A.P. v.
Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 , M. Srikanth v. State of
Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 , CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported
i n (2019) 10 SCC 686 , State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated
30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021 , Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan ,
reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678 , Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in
(2014) 15 SCC 221 , State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan , reported in
(2012) 4 SCC 547 , S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC
600 , Sangeeta Agrawal v. State of U.P. , reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336 , Amit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1811
4 MCRC-1495-2025
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , Padal Venkata
Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC
437 and M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 ,
this Court can quash the proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations
do not make out an offence.
8. Since the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint make
out a prima facie case against applicant, therefore, no case is made out
warranting interference. Application fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Needless to mention that observations have been made by this Court
in the light of limited scope of interference at this stage. The Trial Court
shall decide the complaint strictly in accordance with law after considering
the material which is brought on record.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
pd
