High Court · 2025

2. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 have no objection to the prayer made.

3. In view of above, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary amendment/incorporation in the prayer clause during course of the day.

4. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been preferred by the applicant with the following main relief:- "1. That for the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the accompanying Petition, duly supported by an afÏdavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 04.03.2025 alongwith the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 149/17, Under Section 138(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow. It is further pleased to stay the impugned Non Bailable Warrant issued in respect to case crime no. 149/17, under Section 138(b) The Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow pending before the ADJ/Special Judge PC Act Room No. 4 Lucknow in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR dated 28.03.2017 was lodged against the applicant under Section 138(b) of the Indian Electricity Act (amended), 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2003'). As per the FIR, the applicant was using electricity by re-connecting the disconnected metre, without even making payment of electricity dues.

6. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 138(b) of the Act, 2003 is compoundable and by virtue of Section 152 of the Act and in pursuance thereof, on 04.04.2022, the applicant has deposited Rs. 4,000/- as compounding fee.

7. Ms. Gursimran Kaur, learned counsel, holding brief of Ms. Aprajita Bansal, who is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 has submitted that after deposition of compounding fee, an NOC has also been given to the applicant on 22.4.2025, which has been placed during course of the argument, which is taken on record.

8. It is further submitted that as per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar vs. The State of Maharashtra (being I.A. No. 117535 of 2017 in Cr. Appeal No. 156 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3670/2017 decided on 22.1.2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the proceedings under Sections 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, where the accused had compounded the offences by paying the compounding charges and fulfilling the civil liability and wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act are both compoundable by virtue of Section 152 of the Act.

9. It is further submitted that as per sub Section 3 of Section 152 of the Act, 2003, which provides that 'the acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence in accordance with sub-section (1) by the Appropriate Government or an ofÏcer empowered in this behalf shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal within the meaning of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.'

10. It is further submitted that this Court also, in Application U/S 482 No. 32905 of 2019, followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar (supra) and allowed the same.

11. Ms. Gursimran Kaur, learned counsel, holding brief of Ms. Aprajita Bansal, who is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 is not in a position to dispute the said position of law.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar (supra) has held, as under:- "(4) The Compounding of an offence under sub- section (1)shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer." It will be seen that both Sections 135 and 138, which impose a maximum sentence of three years, both deal with theft of electricity. The High Court has taken a very narrow view of Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is related stricto senso to Section 135 since that section alone deals with the offence of theft, but would not specifically refer to Section 138 which only indirectly relates to the offence of theft. Both the respondent as wellas the petitioner before us have moved the High Court stating that Section 138 would also be so subsumed and have continued to argue the same position before us. We are of the view that this is correct in law inasmuch as the language of Section 152 specifically states ......" an offence of theft" which according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, as well as Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, states that one meaning of 'an' is 'any'. If the word 'any' is substituted for the word 'an' in Section 152, it becomes clear that any offence relating to the theft of electricity is also within the ken of Section.

152. Section 138 also relates to theft of electricity, be it through maliciously injuring meters, and is therefore also within Section 152, and can therefore be compounded. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. We have been informed by learned counsel for the intervenor that the appellant before us has been prosecuted for perjury and that the proceeding in that behalf is pending. We say nothing about the aforesaid proceedings. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands allowed."

13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that since the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that both the offences i.e. offences under Section 135 as well as 138 of the Act are compoundable in nature, the applicant has deposited the amount of compounding fee, hence, the offences as set out in the impugned F.I.R. has been accepted by the respondents.

14. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 B.N.S.S. is hereby allowed.

15. The proceedings pursuant to impugned charge sheet dated 18.06.2017 and impugned cognizance order dated 14.03.2019 and N.B.W. dated 04.03.2025 whereby applicant has been summoned and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the same which have been drawn against the applicant in criminal case "State vs. Subham Rajpoot" u/s 138(b) of Electricity Act, 2003 arising out of FIR No.- 149 of 2017, lodged at Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow pending in the court of Learned Additional District Judge (Fourth), E.C. Act, Lucknow, is set aside.

16. The applicant stands discharged for the offence under Sections 138(b) of the Act, 2003. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Nitesh NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 have no objection to the prayer made.

3. In view of above, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary amendment/incorporation in the prayer clause during course of the day.

4. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been preferred by the applicant with the following main relief:- "1. That for the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the accompanying Petition, duly supported by an afÏdavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 04.03.2025 alongwith the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 149/17, Under Section 138(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow. It is further pleased to stay the impugned Non Bailable Warrant issued in respect to case crime no. 149/17, under Section 138(b) The Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow pending before the ADJ/Special Judge PC Act Room No. 4 Lucknow in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR dated 28.03.2017 was lodged against the applicant under Section 138(b) of the Indian Electricity Act (amended), 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2003'). As per the FIR, the applicant was using electricity by re-connecting the disconnected metre, without even making payment of electricity dues.

6. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 138(b) of the Act, 2003 is compoundable and by virtue of Section 152 of the Act and in pursuance thereof, on 04.04.2022, the applicant has deposited Rs. 4,000/- as compounding fee.

7. Ms. Gursimran Kaur, learned counsel, holding brief of Ms. Aprajita Bansal, who is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 has submitted that after deposition of compounding fee, an NOC has also been given to the applicant on 22.4.2025, which has been placed during course of the argument, which is taken on record.

8. It is further submitted that as per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar vs. The State of Maharashtra (being I.A. No. 117535 of 2017 in Cr. Appeal No. 156 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3670/2017 decided on 22.1.2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the proceedings under Sections 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, where the accused had compounded the offences by paying the compounding charges and fulfilling the civil liability and wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act are both compoundable by virtue of Section 152 of the Act.

9. It is further submitted that as per sub Section 3 of Section 152 of the Act, 2003, which provides that 'the acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence in accordance with sub-section (1) by the Appropriate Government or an ofÏcer empowered in this behalf shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal within the meaning of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.'

10. It is further submitted that this Court also, in Application U/S 482 No. 32905 of 2019, followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar (supra) and allowed the same.

11. Ms. Gursimran Kaur, learned counsel, holding brief of Ms. Aprajita Bansal, who is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 is not in a position to dispute the said position of law.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar (supra) has held, as under:- "(4) The Compounding of an offence under sub- section (1)shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer." It will be seen that both Sections 135 and 138, which impose a maximum sentence of three years, both deal with theft of electricity. The High Court has taken a very narrow view of Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is related stricto senso to Section 135 since that section alone deals with the offence of theft, but would not specifically refer to Section 138 which only indirectly relates to the offence of theft. Both the respondent as wellas the petitioner before us have moved the High Court stating that Section 138 would also be so subsumed and have continued to argue the same position before us. We are of the view that this is correct in law inasmuch as the language of Section 152 specifically states ......" an offence of theft" which according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, as well as Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, states that one meaning of 'an' is 'any'. If the word 'any' is substituted for the word 'an' in Section 152, it becomes clear that any offence relating to the theft of electricity is also within the ken of Section.

152. Section 138 also relates to theft of electricity, be it through maliciously injuring meters, and is therefore also within Section 152, and can therefore be compounded. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. We have been informed by learned counsel for the intervenor that the appellant before us has been prosecuted for perjury and that the proceeding in that behalf is pending. We say nothing about the aforesaid proceedings. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands allowed."

13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that since the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that both the offences i.e. offences under Section 135 as well as 138 of the Act are compoundable in nature, the applicant has deposited the amount of compounding fee, hence, the offences as set out in the impugned F.I.R. has been accepted by the respondents.

14. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 B.N.S.S. is hereby allowed.

15. The proceedings pursuant to impugned charge sheet dated 18.06.2017 and impugned cognizance order dated 14.03.2019 and N.B.W. dated 04.03.2025 whereby applicant has been summoned and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the same which have been drawn against the applicant in criminal case "State vs. Subham Rajpoot" u/s 138(b) of Electricity Act, 2003 arising out of FIR No.- 149 of 2017, lodged at Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow pending in the court of Learned Additional District Judge (Fourth), E.C. Act, Lucknow, is set aside.

16. The applicant stands discharged for the offence under Sections 138(b) of the Act, 2003. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Nitesh NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench