Criminal Misc. No.M-26664 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-26664 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.7.2011 Jiwan Dass ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana Mr.Sudhir Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.631 dated 19.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act for short) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. The FIR in question was registered against the petitioner on the basis of the statement made by Ravi Bhatia- complainant, Junior Engineer, Sub Division No.1 Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Rohtak (UHBVN for short). The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are that he had committed theft of electricity. Criminal Misc. No.M-26664 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of Section 151 of the Act , the cognizance could be taken by the Court only on the basis of a complaint made in writing by the appropriate authority and not on the basis of the FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that the present case was fully covered by the decision of this Court in CRM No.15719-M of 2005 (Annexure P-2). Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have very fairly conceded that the present case was covered by the decision of this Court mentioned above. Para Nos. 22 and 23 of the decision of this Court in CRM No.15719-M of 2005 (Annexure P-2) read as under:- “22. In view of my above discussions, it can safely be opined that there is a special Act in the form of the Electricity Act, 2003 dealing with all issues relating to electricity including the offence of theft of energy. The provisions of IPC which are general in nature shall not be applicable for booking a person for theft of energy. If the provisions of the Act are examined, the Court can take cognizance of offence punishable under the Act only on filing of a complaint whereas in the present case the FIR was registered and consequent thereupon challan was presented in the Court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not in accordance with law. 23. Though a proviso has been added to Section 151 of the Act vide amendment notified with effect from June 15, 2007 to the effect that the Court may take cognizance of Criminal Misc. No.M-26664 of 2010 (O&M) 3 an offence punishable under the Act upon a report of a Police Officer filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the same shall not be of any aid to the respondents for the reason that it came into force after the FIRs in the present case had already been lodged. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out that amendment is retrospective in nature.” The present case relates to the FIR registered in the year 2005 and hence, the same was registered before the proviso was added to Section 151 of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act was added w.e.f. 15.6.2007. In view of the decision given by this Court in CRM No.15719-M of 2005 (Annexure P-2), FIR No. 631 dated 19.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Section 379 IPC and Section 39 of the Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak is quashed. However, respondent No.2 would be at liberty to file a criminal complaint against the petitioner, if so advised. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE July 29, 2011 anita