Hem Raj Anand vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

By means of this Cr. Misc. filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., Hem Raj Anand (petitioner) has prayed for the quashing of FIR No. 726 dated 12.11.97 registered against him under Section 379, IPC, at P.S. Ambala City, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City (Case No. 20/1, dated 28.1.1998).

It is alleged that this case was registered against the petitioner falsely for the theft of electricity on the report of Sh. S.L. Bindal, S.D.O, Operation, Sub Division West, Ambala City. It is alleged that in the premises under reference, the youngest son of the petitioner named Sh. Bharat Bhushan Anand is residing and the petitioner seldom resides there. After the death of his wife, he stays mostly with his elder sons outside. Although the petitioner was not at all liable for the alleged tampering of the electric meter, he deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 3,238/ vide Receipt No. 154 dated 12.11.1997 (Annexure P2 herein), as he had been advised to deposit this sum as penalty/charges in terms of compensation on account of malpractice/ theft vide Memorandum (Annexure P1) issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board. It is alleged that, on the one hand, the authorities of the Electricity Board called upon the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs. 3,238/ as penalty which was deposited by him on 12.11.1997, on the other hand, case FIR No. 726/12.11.97 in question was still got registered against him.

Respondent State of Haryana opposed the prayer of the petitioner urging that when the premises/house of the petitioner was raided, both M&T seals were found tampered and affixed with quick fix. Meter glass was also found loose and, therefore, case under Sections 379, IPC, and 39 of the Electricity Act was registered at P.S. City Ambala. Challan was submitted in the court on 22198. The petitioner cannot be said to have been a lawabiding citizen when he committed theft of electric energy.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned advocate appearing for the State of Haryana. In my opinion, the FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 379, IPC, read with Section 39 of the Electricity Act, should be quashed in view of the Haryana State Electricity Board having framed a policy to receive one time compensation for theft of electricity and to withdraw the cases on receipt of said compensation. The relevant portion of the policy reads as under :

"............... The matter has further been reviewed and it has been decided by the Board that one time compensation from the consumers of different categories may be charged as per the rates mentioned below, where the theft of energy is detected and the offender comes forward voluntarily to settle and make payment of the amount of compensation.

Sr. No. Category Compensation charges

Domestic supply Rs. 5,000/ per KW of sanctioned load.

Nondomestic " Rs. 1000/ per KW of sanctioned load.

Agricultural " Rs. 750/ per BHP of sanctioned load.

L.T. Industrial supply Rs. 1,000/ per BHP of sanctioned load.

H.T. Industrial supply. Rs. 1500 per KVA of sanctioned contract demand.

The above charges will be as one time compensation payable by the consumer to the HSEB where theft is detected and will not be recoverable to using malpractice.

............... .................. .................... ..................

"This F.I.R. will be withdrawn and connection restored only after the deposit of the compensation stated above."

It has also been decided by the Board that the above criteria may also be applicable to the previous cases which are pending and for which FIRs have been lodged on account of detection of theft/pilferage of energy. The concerned SDOs (OP) may convey the above decision of the Board to such consumers and if the defaulting consumer wished to come forward for a final settlement of the matter, they can do so."

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has paid compensation under Annexure P2 dated 121197 and, therefore, claims that in view of the policy aforesaid, the State should have withdrawn from the prosecution which they have not done. The learned counsel for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, submitted that compensation may have been paid by the petitioner to the Haryana State Electricity Board in lieu of unnecessary enrichment which he made at the cost of Haryana State Electricity Board but he must account for his act which is a crime before the criminal court. Since the petitioner has paid compensation to the Haryana State Electricity Board as asked for by them, this FIR should be quashed as continuing the same and prosecuting him on its basis will be unjust. The object of suing such a party by the Haryana State Electricity Board is that if the Board is compensated by a consumer of electricity who has pilfered the electricity, he should not be vexed before the criminal court. Pilffering electricity impinges upon the electricity revenues. If the Electricity Board has been compensated, there should be no vexation of the consumer before the criminal court. So, this Cr, Misc. Petition is accepted and FIR No. 726 of 12.11.97 registered against the petitioner under Section 379, IPC at P.S. City Ambala, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are also quashed.