Mohd. Akram v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Mr. N.S. Kanyal learned A.G.A. for the State. None turns up on behalf of the Respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) has been preferred by the Applicant, seeking quashing of the charge sheet No. 141/2019 dated 17.05.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated 24.08.2021, and the entire criminal proceedings in Special Sessions Trial (Electricity Act) No. 873 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 218 of 2019, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amendment), 2003, Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar, pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this application are that an FIR bearing No. 218 of 2019 was lodged on 02.05.2019 by RespondentNo. 2, a Junior Engineer with the Electricity Department, alleging theft of electricity by the Applicant by connecting an AB cable to the LT line, which, upon Criminal misc. Application No. 417 of 2025-----Mohd. Akram vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 1 Ashish Naithani J. inspection, was found to be in contravention of Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

3. The local police conducted the investigation, and upon its conclusion, charge sheet No. 141/2019 dated 17.05.2019 was submitted before the competent court, on which cognizance was taken, and summons were issued to the Applicant vide order dated 24.08.2021.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed as the Applicant has, subsequent to the alleged occurrence, cleared all dues pertaining to the alleged theft. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Roorkee, vide letter dated 29.04.2019, had raised a demand of ₹49,639/- against the Applicant, which amount has been duly deposited by the Applicant vide receipt dated 20.10.2022.

6. It is further urged that the Applicant has approached the competent authorities as well as the District Magistrate, Haridwar, for compounding of the offence, as permissible under Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, but despite such efforts, the Electricity Department has not issued the compounding letter.

7. It is, therefore, prayed that the proceedings be quashed in the interest of justice, especially since no dues remain outstanding against the Applicant, and the very object of prosecution under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, i.e., recovery of loss to the department, stands achieved.

8. The learned State Counsel has opposed the application, contending that the charge-sheet was filed after a thorough investigation based on credible evidence, including statements of witnesses and recovery of material indicating theft of electricity. Criminal misc. Application No. 417 of 2025-----Mohd. Akram vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. It is submitted that the trial court has rightly taken cognizance after due application of judicial mind. However, the learned State Counsel does not dispute that the Applicant has deposited the assessed amount of ₹49,639/- and has approached the competent authorities for compounding of the offence.

10. This Court finds that the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is compoundable in nature under Section 152 of the Act. The Applicant has already deposited the entire assessed amount, as evidenced by the receipt dated 20.10.2022, and has also approached the competent authority for compounding of the offence.

11. The purpose of criminal prosecution under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is primarily to deter theft of electricity and to ensure recovery of losses caused to the Electricity Department. Once such loss has been made good, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 12. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the Electricity Act provides specific provisions for compounding, and the spirit of these provisions should not be defeated by procedural technicalities or administrative inaction.

13. The legislative intent behind providing for compounding is to resolve such matters expeditiously and avoid clogging the criminal justice system with cases that can be settled through alternative means.

14. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings where, in view of a settlement between the parties, the further continuance of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or would not serve the ends of justice. Criminal misc. Application No. 417 of 2025-----Mohd. Akram vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 3 Ashish Naithani J.

15. The Supreme Court clarified that, although the power must be exercised with caution, its exercise is warranted in cases where the offence is essentially private in nature. The underlying dispute has been amicably resolved, particularly where the statutory scheme permits compounding and the aggrieved party stands fully compensated.

16. Applying this principle in the context of special statutes such as the Electricity Act, 2003, which are designed to permit compounding of certain offences and to protect economic interests through recovery of assessed dues, it logically follows that once the alleged loss to the department has been fully compensated and compounding has been duly carried out, the continued prosecution of the accused no longer serves any meaningful purpose.

17. This judicial approach has received consistent affirmation, and in circumstances such as the present, the Court is justified in quashing the proceedings to advance substantial justice and to prevent unnecessary harassment of the accused.

18. In the present case, the Applicant has discharged his liability by depositing the assessed amount, and the Respondents have brought nothing adverse on record to suggest any pending dues. The refusal or delay on the part of the Electricity Department to issue a compounding letter cannot prejudice the Applicant who has complied with the statutory requirements. Thus, allowing the present application would serve the ends of justice. ORDER Having considered the facts of the case, the submissions advanced, and the applicable legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings in Special Sessions Trial (Electricity Act) No. 873 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 218 of Criminal misc. Application No. 417 of 2025-----Mohd. Akram vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 4 Ashish Naithani J. 2019, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 417 of 2025 is, accordingly, allowed. Consequently, charge sheet No. 141/2019 dated 17.05.2019, the cognizance/summoning order dated 24.08.2021, and the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial (Electricity Act) No. 873 of 2021, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. Dated: 25.07.2025 Ashish Naithani, J. SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3 a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796 A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE2 9BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Criminal misc. Application No. 417 of 2025-----Mohd. Akram vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 5 Ashish Naithani J.