Raju Roy @ Shiv Charan Roy vs State Of West Bengal & Anr

Chaitali Chatterjee Das, J

None appears today in respect of OP No. 2. The matter was heard at length on 14.11.25. No further submission is advanced on behalf of either of the parties.

This revisional application has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing of FIR registered in Karaya P.S. Case No.279 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024 under Sections 135/138 of the E.C. Act, 2003 corresponding to the Electricity Act Case No.986/24 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act)-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

By virtue of the order impugned, the learned Special Court has passed a direction to register the complaint as FIR as a special case. The matter pertains to theft to electricity and was initiated on the basis of a complaint by the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station dated 29.11.2024 by the Senior Engineer, CESC Ltd. alleging that on enquiry, he came to know that present petitioner alongwith other accused persons are consuming electricity by means of tapping from the incoming cable of CESC ltd. Inside KMC Kiosk located in front of 72 C Tiljala ,Masjid Bari Lane and they are the direct beneficiaries of such illegal use of electricity.

It was further alleged that on detection of such theft of electricity, the said unauthorized distribution network was removed and the wire use for tapping such unauthorized obstruction of electricity was seized in front of the KMC kiosk.

It is the contention of the learned advocate representing the petitioner that the petitioner received a notice on December 2, 2024 wherefrom it reveals that the Assessing Officer of CESC Ltd. sent the notice dated November 29, 2024 with a direction to the petitioner to appear on December 13, 2024. The petitioner was not informed with the entire allegation, as imposed upon him.

It is further submitted that the petitioner filed an application on December 7, 2024 for want of certified copy of the complaint and the FIR in connection with the Karaya Police Station Case No.279 dated November 29, 2024 and obtained the same on January 3, 2025. From that he only came to learn that pursuant to an alleged theft of electricity by way of hooking from a K.M.C Kiosk, the allegation has been made by the opposite party against the present petitioner as a mastermind and nothing else but, there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner. There were some other persons against whom the allegation of theft has been brought.

By virtue of letter dated December 12, 2024, the opposite party no.2 sent the notice for effecting imposition of the amount of Rs.1,87,937/- for the alleged unauthorized use of electricity. It is the specific case that he is engaged in his personal works for taxi-driving and there is no chance to commit any offence, as alleged against him and the complaint was lodged on a mere assumption which are vexatious and therefore is liable to be quashed.

It is further argued that if this case is allowed to continue, it would be an abuse of process of law. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2023) 15 SCC 502 to substantiate his contention that when there is no grave suspicion found from the F.I.R and is only an assumption the F.I.R is liable to be quashed.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has further relied upon the decision of Mahaveer Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2180.

Per Contra, the learned advocate representing the opposite party submits that the letter of complaint, prima facie, makes out an offence of theft of electricity, which is cognizable offence. At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

It is further argued that the investigation should not be thwarted by the Court into a cognizable offence, prima facie; the case is very much evident. The FIR is not an Encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the Court could not go into the merits of the allegation in the FIR. That apart, grievance relating to final assessment amount, if any, form of adjudication of the same is settled and distinct.

Learned advocate further relied upon on the decision of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 (3) SCC 531 in order to show that the stage when the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. /528 B.N.S.S. to be exercised to quash a proceeding where investigation is still going on.

Heard he submission of both the Learned Advocates.

From the submissions as extended by the learned counsels and from the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it can be found that the allegation was against the petitioner to use electricity in an unauthorised manner by means of tapping from the incoming cable of CESC Ltd. Inside KMC Kiosk located in front of 72C, Tiljala Masjid Bari Lane, Kolkata. 700039 and to distribute such electricity to some adjacent premises and the beneficiaries are named in the written complaint. It was specifically mentioned in the complaint that the present petitioner is an associate of Shibshankar Roy, the alleged mastermind behind such act of the supply derived in such authorized manner for unauthorized distribution of electricity to nearby premises at 16A, Tiljala Road. Accordingly, the unauthorized tapping was removed on 29.11.2024 at 12.00 noon and seizure list was prepared. Subsequent thereto, a notice under Section 35 (3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 was sent to the present petitioners and the petitioners vide a Letter dated 29.11.2024 denied the allegation reveals against him.

It further transpires from the record, in course of investigation in the inspection report, prima facie, tapping was found and name of beneficiaries were given. The conduct of the petitioner has been prescribed as one of the mastermind behind such act of pilferage.

In the decision of Vishnu Kumar Shukla (supra) paragraph 22, it was held that on the facts express, if it is found that there is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the offence alleged it would be unjustified to make the appellants face a full-fledged criminal.

It  was  further  observed  that  “The  protection  against  vexations  and unwanted prosecution and from being unnecessarily dragged through a trial by melting a criminal proceeding into oblivion, either through quashing an FIR/complaint or by allowing an appeal against an order rejecting discharge or by any other legally permissible route, as the circumstances may be, in the deserving case, is a duty cast on the High Courts. The High Court should have intervened and discharged the appellants.” The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) that while dealing with an application for quashing of FIR or the entire proceeding, a balance is to be struck between the rights of genuine complaints and the F.I.R disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and if facts are hazy the investigation has just begun the High court would be circumspect tin exercising such powers and the High court must permit the investigating agency to proceed further with the investigation in exercise of its statutory duty under the provisions of code.

The relevant portion of the judgment of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. is quoted below:-

“10. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The  power  of  quashing  should  be  exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;”

In The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the court considered the scope of the High Court powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and whereby it was held inter alia that if the allegations in the F.I.R are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused the complaint can be quashed.

In  the  instant  case,  after  careful  perusal  materials  on  record  and considering the facts and circumstances, it is observed that in the complaint, the specific allegation has been levelled against a present petitioner being the mastermind to the offence committed whereby from the kiosk the electricity was transmitted to some adjacent houses adopting unlawful means and the name of the beneficiaries given, which involved huge amount of loss, for unauthorised use of electricity and the investigation is still going on . Therefore prima facie a case has been made out on which investigation is still in progress and pendency of this revisional application has caused a substantial delay in proceeding further.

The decision as relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner in Vishnu Kumar Shukla (supra), the challenge was made while the court framed the charge the Hon’ble court discussed the nature of evaluation to be made at the stage of framing of charge but in this case the investigation is still pending. In the instant case it since a prima facie allegation has been levelled and the accused has been described as master mind and it is not a mere theft of electricity only by hooking to a specific premises but by means of tapping from the incoming cable of C.E.S.C. ltd. inside KMC Kiosk distributed to a number of beneficiaries hence at this stage of pending investigation it cannot be said to be vexatious. The other case as relied upon in Mahaveer (supra) the appeal was filed against an order of conviction and the parameters to be considered are wholly different and is not applicable.

The petitioner will not be remediless as after completion of investigation the law permits to file an application for discharge and the learned Court has ample power and authority to consider the same on the basis of the available materials. Hence this court is unable to accept the contention that if it allows to be continued, it would be amount to abuse of process of law. On the contrary, this Court is of the view that the investigation, which is pending since long must be completed at the earliest and if the prayer stands allowed at this stage, it would have severe impact on the pending investigation

Accordingly, this revisional application has not merit and stands dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.