1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 178/2010 Mukesh L.Dedhia Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents Mr.Madhukar Dalvi with Ms.M.Thakkar Advocate for petitioner Mr.Rajesh More,APP for State CORAM :SMT.RANJANA DESAI, & SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : 18th JANUARY, 2010 . P.C. (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) . This writ petition is filed for quashing the F.I.R.registered vide LAC No.281/2008 of Matunga Police Station against the petitioner. Matunga police station has registered a case against the brothers of the petitioner under section 135 r/w section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for committing theft of electricity in the residential as well as commercial premises wherein they are conducting the business and are also residing. The action of the police is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that he has been belatedly arrayed as an accused in the said case only because he is brother of the main accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 2 submitted that the petitioner is not staying in the premises and is in no way connected with the offence of theft of electricity. It is further submitted that the present accused is roped in the offence by the police without following the requisite procedure under section 135 of the Electricity Act. It is further submitted that the police have made false statement that the petitioner was absconding since 2/5/2008 . The same investigating officer is investigating the offence under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code which is registered against the petitioner by his wife and in that offence the petitioner is released on bail. 2] Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State while opposing the petition has pointed out that the police report and the panchanama disclose that the flat no. 601 in which stolen electricity was being used was occupied by one Siddhi Mukesh Dedhia i.e. the wife of the petitioner alongwith the children. This itself shows the involvement of the accused in the offence of theft of electricity. This offence was registered on 29/4/2008. The offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered by his wife subsequent to the registration 3 of this offence Therefore, there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner to array him as an accused in the said L.A.C.. 3] In State of Haryana & Ors.Vs.Ch.Bhajan Lal & Others, AIR 1992,SC, 604 the Supreme Court laid down the categories of cases wherein inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution could be exercised. The Supreme Court has interalia held that these powers could be exercised where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their fact value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. The Supreme Court has further held that these powers could also be exercised where the uncontraverted allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. The Supreme Court has also held that these powers are to be used sparingly with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases. 4 4] We have been shown the complaint and the material collected by the prosecution. Having perused the same it is not possible for us to hold that the complaint and the material collected by the police do not disclose commission of any offence against the accused . It cannot be overlooked that the flat in which stolen electricity was being used the wife of the petitioner is residing. She did not allow the officers to enter the flat . Hence the matter needs to be investigated. This is not a case which is covered by the categories laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal’s case in which F.I.R. can be quashed. 5] In our opinion there is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed . We , however, leave all contentions raised by the petitioner on merits of the case open. The trial Court shall deal with the case independently and in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J.) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) 5