AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 18-08-2026
Heard the parties.
The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 19-09-2018 as passed by learned Special Judge, P.E.S.U. Area Patna, in Special Case No-324/2012, arising out of Gandhi Maidan P.S. case No 420/2012, through which prayer of the petitioner for discharge under section 239 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
As per prosecution case, on 21.12.2012, Arvind Kumar, Assistant Electrical Engineer lodged a complaint alleging that during a raid at Shop No. 2, Jyoti Tower, belonging to petitioner, where electricity was being illegally consumed, despite its disconnection on 08.12.2012 for non-payment of dues. The alleged act was treated as theft of electricity under Section 135(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, causing an alleged total loss of Rs. 2,96,844/-, including previous dues of Rs. 2,74,115.49/- and theft-related loss of Rs. 22,729/-.
On the basis of aforesaid written complaint a Gandhi Maidan P.S. case No 420 of 2012 was registered against the petitioner under section 135/135(a) of Electricity Act, whereafter, charge sheet No-52 of 2013 dated 28/02/2013 was submitted against petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 135/135 1(a) of the Electricity Act, and subsequently the cognizance was taken by learned Jurisdictional Magistrate for the aforesaid offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after lodging the FIR, petitioner deposited Rs. 2,74,115/- as outstanding due with the Electricity Department under protest and raised the issue that in fact premises, in issue, was under use of his tenant and he was not liable to pay. It is submitted that one Eviction Suit No.48 of 2013 was also filed against the tenant. It is also submitted that the Electricity Department accepted the plea of this petitioner and held that the electricity, in actual, was consumed by the tenant of the petition. Being aggrieved with, the tenant of the petitioner reached this Court invoking its Writ Jurisdiction where his prayer was accepted and electric meter was directed to be installed. It is further submitted that being aggrieved with this petitioner filed a writ petition disputing the status of his tenant which virtually accepted as owner by this Court.
With all such aforesaid development, petitioner preferred a petition for discharge u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. which was rejected through impugned order.
It is a settled principle of law that even “ grave suspicion” is sufficient to frame charges in criminal proceedings, and at the stage of framing charges probative value of materials, available on record, cannot be appreciated to the extent, which may culminate either with conviction or acquittal.
The issues which appears disputed by the petitioner regarding consumption of electricity, whether by himself or by his tenant is a factual aspect, which can be ascertained during the trial only.
In view of aforesaid the present petition appears devoid of any merit and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
Trial Court Records, if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment.