Anees Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The main grievance, which has been raised and argued by the learned counsel for the applicant is that in pursuance to an action taken by the respondent contending thereof that the electricity metre, which was installed in the premises of the present applicant was found to be tampered, for which the respondent contend that the same was sent to the laboratory and after the laboratory test, it was found that while examining the seal of the metre, there was certain defects were found, which were pointed out in the report of inspection submitted later.

At this stage, when this Court is considering the present C482 Application, this Court is not concerned with the either steps taken for the laboratory test of the metre, or the report which was submitted thereafter; but, what is reflected is that after the test which was conducted and on the basis of report which was submitted on 17th October 2011, the respondent had assessed the applicant under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and by an order dated 2nd December 2011, whereby a total liability was settled to be paid by the applicant was assured as Rs. 2,38,710/-.

Yet again, it is important to mention that this Court is not at all venturing into the propriety of the quantum of liability, which has been settled on the applicant by the proceedings under Section 126, because under the statute, the same would be a subject matter of an appeal, which is statutorily available to the applicant against the assessment order as contemplated under Section 126 or by way of filing a compounding application under Section 152 but that is exclusively depending upon the choice of the applicant to have the recourse available to him under law governing the field.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in order to redress his grievance pertaining to the action being taken in pursuance to the report dated 2nd December 2011, the applicant had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum by filing a complaint before it numbered as 52 of 2013, Anish v. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, after considering the propriety of the complaint and the set of allegations emanating from the report and the fixation of the liability under Section 126 had taken a decision on 27th November 2013, whereby certain findings have been recorded pertaining to the propriety of the report on which the stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it cannot be relied with, which is quoted hereunder:-

"प्रत्यक्ष अवलोकन से मीटर की चैकिंग रिपोर्ट के आधार पर निर्धारण के संबंध में जो प्रोविजनल असैसमेन्ट दि0 2-12-11 का नोटिस विपक्षी विभाग का है उसके अनुसार न्यूनतम धनराशि 2,38,710/- रू है। उस नोटिस के परिसीलन से यह परिलक्षित होता है कि शिकायतकर्ता का मीटर "अनयूजअल'' सॉल्डरिंग फाउन्ड इन पीसीबी'' विभाग द्वारा पाया गया और उसी के आधार पर निर्धारण किया गया। इस संबंध में जो विभागीय आदेश है, उसके अनुसार यदि टैस्ट लैब द्वारा मीटर धीमा दर्शित किया गया है या मीटर में छेड़छाड पायी गयी है तो 06 माह से ज्यादा का निर्धारण नहीं किया जा सकता। पत्रावली पर जितने भी बिल हैं, उनमें सभी पर मीटर रीडर द्वारा बॉक्स सील पाया गया। प्रश्न यह उठता है कि जब शिकायतकर्ता का मीटर सील पाया गया है तो नोटिस दिनांकित 2.12.11 का विभाग के समक्ष क्या औचित्य था। ऐसी स्थिति में शिकायतकर्ता को जो प्रस्तावित नोटिस दी गयी है, वह बिना किसी आधार के हैं और अनावश्यक रूप से उस स्थिति में शिकायतकर्ता की शकायत स्वीकृत होने योग्य हैं तथा प्रस्तावित नोटिस दिनांकित 2-12-11 जिसके द्वारा 2,38,710/ रू0 की धनराशि शिकायतकर्ता पर प्रस्तावित है, वह निरस्त होने योग्य है।''

Admittedly, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in its finding had accepted the complaint considered respective case before it,and has passed a judgement on 27th November, 2013. As against the said judgement and setting aside of the Demand Notice in pursuance to the assessment made on 2nd December 2011, the Forum which could have been made available to the respondent was either to file a writ petition against the assessment order or may choose whatsoever Forum was available to them under the law as against the order dated 27th November, 2013 but an assessing act done by invoking Section 126 could not have been given a blend of a criminal nature by registering an FIR on 26th May 2013, and that too on the same of set of allegation, which already stood adjudicated by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum on 27th November 2013 thereafter the criminal proceeding couldn't have been continued.

In other words, it could be said that the respondent instead of invoking an appropriate Forum for redrassal of their grievances as against allowing of the complaint by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum preferred by the applicant had resorted to the criminal proceedings after the issue stood settled by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

This Court is of the view that having a recourse to a criminal proceedings after the adjudication having been made under Section 126 and under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell was nothing but an act of pressurising and a malicious proceedings, which was drawn against the present applicant. At least the criminal proceedings by invoking Section 126 and 135 could not have been registered as Crime Case No. 156 of 2013, after the adjudication which was made by the Consumer Redressal Forum, prior in time, hence no cognizance could have been taken on the charge sheet which has been submitted in pursuance to the registration of the FIR dated 26th May 2013 or on conclusion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer.

Hence, the very genesis of the initiation of the criminal proceedings and ultimate submission of charge sheet dated 27.07.2013 and the issuance of the summoning order and commencement of the Special Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2014, State v. Anees Ahmad runs contrary to their own decision under Section 126 and the decision of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum rendered on 27th November 2013, as the same would amount to be an absolute abuse of process of courts of law as it will amount to give a blend under the regular Act, a criminal shape by registering the FIR and proceedings with the Sessions trial which would be contrary to the decision of Consumer Redressal Forum which has been decided against the department, which was being sought to be overcome by proceeding with the criminal case and hence it call for an interference while exercising my extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because continuance of a criminal proceedings under the given set of circumstances of the case would be nothing but an absolute abuse of process and deviating to have a redressal of a grievances from the principal Courts which the respondent had already lost before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. Consequently, the criminal proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 60 of 2014, State v. Anish Ahmed is quashed. Consequently, for the above reason, this Court is of the view that the the present C-482 application deserves to allowed, however, this will not prejudice the rights of either the applicants or the respondent to have their recourse available against the assessment order so far it relates to the applicant and against the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum's order so far it relates to respondent No. 1. In case if the applicant prefers an appeal under Section 127 of the Act, the issue of limitation is to be rationally considered taking into consideration in the light of the fact of the pendency of the present C482 application and a liberal consideration would be given to it.

Subject to the above observation, the present C-482 application is allowed. The criminal proceeding by way of Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2014, State v. Anish Ahmed is quashed.