THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2589 of 2010 (Dated : 23-11-2011) Between: Smt. B.Ranga Latha W/o B.Sathyanarayana Village & Mandal, Vizianagaram District ….Petitioner A n d State of A.P., rep. by Vigilance & APTS P.S., Vizianagaram through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2589 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the accused in Crime No.73 of 2010 of Vigilance & APTS P.S., Vizianagaram to quash the proceedings therein. 2. N.Appala Raju, AE (Operations), Balijipeta inspected the electric service connection bearing Service Connection No.625 and noticed certain incriminating circumstances to infer pilferage of energy by suppressing the actual consumption by meddling with the meter movement. The loss sustained by the complainant is estimated at Rs.7,605/-. P.Atchuthari, Assistant Engineer, Operations, APEPDCL, Bobbili presented a complaint before the Station House Officer, Vigilance & APTS P.S, Vizianagaram. Thereupon, the S.H.O., registered a case for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 and issued F.I.R. Hence this petition. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 18.3.2010. The respondents entered appearance through counsel. 4. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that he is not the registered consumer of the Service Connection No.625 and that the 2nd respondent without verifying the records presented a complaint against the petitioner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL appearing for the respondent No.2 fairly submits that the petitioner is not the registered consumer of S.C.No.625. 6. When the petitioner is not the registered consumer of Service Connection No.625, the question of her tampering with the service connection does not arise. On this simple ground, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.73 of 2010 of Vigilance & APTS P.S., Vizianagaram. However, this order does not preclude the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the registered consumer. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.23-11-2011 RAR