Anil Mehta @ Anil Kumar Mehta vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel for the respondent Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) and Mr. Deepankar Ray, the learned counsel for the respondent State.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R in connection with Hussainabad P.S.Case No.19 of 2023 dated 19.01.2023 registered under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

The F.I.R was registered on written complaint of one Pradip Kumar Singh, Junior Electrical Engineer, Japla wherein it has been stated that a raid team was constituted on 18.01.2023 in light of direction given by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dhurwa. It has been further stated that he along with other members of raiding team conducted raids at Japla under Hussainabad Police Station in between 10 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and details of it were mentioned therein. Further the request was made to register an FIR under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and taking legal action against the person named in the written complaint.

Mr. Prabhat Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name finds place at sl.no.7 of the said F.I.R wherein the allegations are made of having consumer number in the premises in question as Consumer No.KJ-1032 and for that a sum of Rs.32,747/- was pending. He submits that the allegations are made that the petitioner was illegally taking the electricity by way of directly from the electric pole. He submits that in the entire village, on the basis of average only the bills are being raised. He further submits that the electrification of the said village was done in the year 2005-06, however, the connection in the name of the grand-father of the petitioner has been shown to be of earlier period. He submits that the entire FIR is malicious and it may kindly be quashed.

Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) submits that there is allegation of taking the electricity from the pole directly and section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act is attracted. He submits that by way of wrongful act, the petitioner has been benefitted and therefore, dishonesty is there, and he refers to section 24 of the Indian Penal Code to justify his this argument. He further submits that the case is still being investigated and this is not a case of quashing of the FIR.

Mr. Deepankar Ray, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that there is an allegation of taking electricity by way of taping.

In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court finds that even the argument of the learned counsel of the petitioner with regard to electrification of that village is accepted, the case of quashing of the FIR is not being made out as there is allegation of taking electricity by way of taping. Even on average the bill is being raised by the respondent–JBVNL, the action must be bonafide and if it is not bonafide that cannot be a ground of quashing of the FIR. At this stage, mens rea cannot be appreciated when the allegations are there of taking electricity by way of taping. No case of interference is made out.

W.P.(Cr.) No.244 of 2023 is accordingly dismissed.

Interim order is vacated.

Pending petition if any also stands dismissed accordingly.