Sri Naveen Sanghi vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.2102 of 2026 of A.P.T.S., Team-I, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”).

2. Heard Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

3. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the premises. However, he executed a lease deed in favour of Society for Education Encouragement and Development (Seed) through a registered sale deed dated 11.01.2018. When the tenant committed default in payment of rent and other amenities, the petitioner and two others filed a suit in O.S.No.238 of 2022 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, property tax, electricity charges and other charges. The said suit was decreed on 30.08.2023. Pursuant to the said decree, the petitioner and others took physical possession of the property in February, 2026. The allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioner tampered with the electricity service meter and committed theft of electrical energy, for which an estimated amount of Rs.3,59,892/- was assessed, do not attract the ingredients of Section 135 of the Act, especially when the petitioner is not in physical possession of the property and the tenant is in possession. He further submitted that respondent No.2 ought to have verified who had tampered with the meter and committed theft of energy. He further submitted that, questioning the notice vide Case No.DPE/HYS/326/26, demanding the petitioner to pay the estimated energy amount of Rs.3,59,892/-, the petitioner had approached this Court and filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.24982 of 2026. This Court, while ordering notice before admission on 31.07.2026, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in connection with the impugned notice mentioned therein. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the alleged tampering of the electricity meter was found after conducting a test on 21.05.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner made a request to respondent No.2 for dismantling of the meter and, as on the date of submission of the said request, the petitioner was in possession of the property. Whether the petitioner committed theft of energy or the tenant committed theft of energy has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is still in progress. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Investigating Officer ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

In view of the above and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put forth his grievance by raising all the pleas which are available to him and he is also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in his custody, to the Investigating Officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.