IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.81 of 2009 ASHA DEVI WIFE OF SRI MATHURA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MUHALLA BASANDT VIHAR COLONY, RAGHUNATH PATNA, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD, VIDHUT BHAWAN PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNION, PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, DANAPUR, PATNA 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, DANAPUR, PATNA 6. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE DANAPUR POLICE STATION, DANAPUR, PATNA ----- 5 08.04.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the respondent-Board. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board and a rejoinder to the same has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the first information report which led to the registration of Danapur P.S. Case No. 367 of 2008 registered on 13th December, 2008 for the alleged offence under sections 135, 136 of the Electricity Act. It is submitted that the allegations have been made against the petitioner of theft of electrical energy unauthorizedly for running motor of one horse power by bye- passing the electric meter. It is further submitted that although the allegation have been made alleging theft of electrical energy on the part of the petitioner, however the allegations are absolutely false which would be evident from the conduct of the raiding party since the electrical connection of the premises of the petitioner was not disconnected ; the motor in question which was alleged to be run by unauthorized electrical connection was not seized ; any relevant goods etc. were not seized ; copy of the seizure list was not given to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is presently paying the electrical bill for consumption of electrical energy. It is further submitted that on perusal of the seizure list as contained in Annexure-3 it would appear that a 30 fit long PVC wife electrical wire was seized from the premises which was allegedly used for the theft of electrical energy. It is further contented that the petitioner represented before the Electrical Superintending Engineer of the concerned circle vide Annexure-4 alleging false registration of case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submits that admittedly the allegations made in the first information report do constitute an offence of theft of electrical energy, however, the truthfulness of otherwise of the allegations are the matter of investigation. It is further submitted that the question of seizure of articles other than electrical wire etc. are the subject matter of investigation and on account of non-seizure of the motor in question, the first information report cannot be quashed by holding that no offence is made out. Learned counsel for the State submits that during the hearing of the bail application the petitioner realizing the allegation of theft of electrical energy agreed to pay the loss caused to the Board in installments vide order dated 19.12.2008 as contained in Annexure-5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, on perusal of the allegations made in the first information report, I find that there is specific allegation of theft of electrical energy as also the manner in which the said theft of electrical energy was committed. The allegations also disclose that on the spot the electric wire of 30 fit length was also seized which was used in connection with theft of electrical energy. As regards the submission of the petitioner that after the detection of theft of electrical energy, the electric connection of the premises of the petitioner was not disconnected, the motor was not seized and the seizure list was not given to the petitioner since according to the petitioner the seizure was not made in his presence, in my opinion, having a specific allegation of theft of electrical energy and the matter which has been raised by the petitioner could be a matter of investigation, the same can not be a ground for quashing the first information report. In view of the above discussions as made above, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same accordingly stands dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)