IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2805 of 2009(S) -------------------------- C.C. 395 OF 2009 OF JFCM, KUNNAMKULAM. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SUCY GEORGE, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, MUTHUVARA, PRESENTLY WORKING IN ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VIYOOR, THRISSUR. 2. T. MANOJ, ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MUTHUVARA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MECHERIVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUTHUVARA DESOM, P.O.MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT.JALAJA, W/O.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MECHERIVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUTHUVARA DESOM, P.O.MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON 05/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2805 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexures A1, A2 and A12 and all further proceedings in C.C.395 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam quashed. 2. Annexure A1 complaint was laid by the first respondent herein. According to the complainant, his wife had got electricity connection to the house as per consumer No.5382 MVA. According to the complainant, due to certain deficiencies in service and unfair practice, the wife of the petitioner was constrained to move the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against the petitioners herein as C.C. No.403 of 2006. Apprehending dis-connection, they moved an interlocutory application as I.A.3343 of 2006 against disconnection. That application was allowed and an Crl.M.C.2805/2009. 2 interim order was granted in favour of the complainant and his wife. The interim order was served on the petitioners herein. Petitioners did not honour the order. Again, the wife of the complainant was constrained to move the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and got further orders in the matter and finally the supply was restored on 8.11.2008. It is pointed out that the petitioners were guilty of wilful disobedience of an order passed by the CDRF and they have committed the offence punishable under Section 166 Indian Penal Code. The complaint was laid before the Magistrate court concerned and that was referred for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The police filed a final report, based on which cognizance was taken. The court has chosen to issue summons to the petitioners. 3. The petitioners say that the proceedings are clear case of abuse of process of court and have been initiated without any bonafides. According to them, the facts are not as stated by the complainants in their complaint and in other words it is not as stated by the Crl.M.C.2805/2009. 3 respondents in this petition. 4. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.395 of 2009 on the file of JFCM, Kunnamkulam. 5. It is stated that the wife of the first respondent herein had an electricity connection as consumer No.5382 MVA. It is stated that in September, 1996 the second respondent had taken an electric connection to a temporary shed under LT VIIA tariff as consumer No.5382 for the purpose of construction of a building. The building is now numbered as XIII/370. According to the petitioners, even after the completion of the construction of the building, instead of shifting the connection to the newly constructed building, she retained the temporary connection after converting it into LT I tariff in order to avoid OYEC charges of about Rs.12,000/- for the purpose of giving connection to the new building. The respondents are fully aware that they were not entitled to retain the temporary connection. Thereafter it is pointed out the respondents started construction of a new house in the place of the temporary Crl.M.C.2805/2009. 4 shed. Power supply was used for the said purpose without informing the Board. They had misused the supply. Thereafter the second respondent had shifted the meter Board of 5382 LT I A connection to the bedroom of the newly constructed house on their own and obtained building No. as XIII/370 A. They had taken connection to the newly constructed building by illegal means. The method adopted was of a dangerous nature and that was detected by the officers of the Board. Necessarily the Board has to take action. They had regularized the connection and the petitioners say that they have not done any act in violation of the orders passed by the CDRF. They pointed out that all that they had done was to disconnect the unauthorised supply taken by the complainants and there was no injunction restraining them from doing the said act. They also contended that it is incorrect to say that they had disconnected the supply in contravention of the order. 6 It is to be noticed that the petitioners have produced certain photographs and other documents to show Crl.M.C.2805/2009. 5 that there was unauthorised use of electric supply by the respondents herein and also that they had concealed the true facts from the CDRF. The photographs produced will clearly show the illegal drawing of electric lines without the sanction of the Board. It is significant to notice that when the irregularity was detected inspection was conducted by the officers of the Board. They found that the supply was taken unauthorisedly and in a dangerous manner and unless urgent steps are taken, it may result in severe consequences. Annexures A7, A7 and A8 evidence this fact. 7. It is true that there was an order of injunction against the petitioners from the CDRF. But that was against disconnecting the power supply. In the light of the facts stated by the petitioners as evidenced by the records, it could not be said that they had violated the order of injunction passed by the CDRF and had disconnected the supply to the house of the complainants. It is very evident from the records that the respondents had unauthorisedly drawn electric line without informing the Board. It cannot be Crl.M.C.2805/2009. 6 said that the injunction was to restrain the petitioners herein from disconnecting the unauthorised connection drawn by the respondents herein. Obviously, the respondents had not presented the true picture before the CDRF and had obtained an order in their favour. 8. It is also significant to notice that in this petition even though the respondents were served with notice, they have not chosen to appear and contest the matter. That prima facie shows that the claim made by the petitioners are true. None of the allegations made in the petition is controverted. In the light of the said fact, the claim made by the petitioners seems to be fully justified. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of this court to the various provisions of the Electricity Act and impressed upon this court the necessity and compulsion on the part of the officials of the Board to take immediate steps when such unauthorised connections and dangerous connections are drawn by the consumers. Crl.M.C.2805/2009. 7 In the result, this petition is allowed, all further proceedings in C.C.395 of 2009 before the JFCM, Kunnamkulam shall stand quashed and further proceedings shall stand dropped. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.