1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4224 OF 2008 1 Satishchandra S/o Ramchandra Wani, Age : 59 years, Occ : Service, As Assistant Engineer, (Retd.), R/o Urban-2, Maharashtra, State Electricity Distribution Com Ltd., Jalgaon. 2. Ashok Harchand Warke, Age : 53 years, Occ : Service, As Jr. Engineer, MSEDCL, R/o Branch Navi Peth, Golani Market, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Com. Ltd., Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ..APPLICANTS - VERSUS - 1 Kishor Dwarkadas Fulawani, Age : 42 years, Occ : Business, R/o A-1/7, Sangam Society, Ring Road, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 2. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on P.P. High Court Bench at Aurangabad) ..RESPONDENTS Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for applicants Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for respondent no.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 4th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1 This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenges the cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon in Criminal Case No. 308/2007. The respondent is the complainant. He lodged his complaint on the following narration: 2 2 The applicants are the Engineers working with M.S.E.B., Jalgaon. The respondent stated that prior to April, 2004, the applicants lodged a complaint against him alleging that he had committed theft of electricity. On 3rd April, 2004, the electric meter installed in the shop of the respondent was changed and new meter was installed. On 5th April, 2004, the respondent noticed that the meter was running too fast and recording more units of electricity consumed than the actual. He made complaint about it to the applicants and the meter was changed on 26th April, 2004. (Nothing happened thereafter for about two years.) The applicants, on 29th March, 2006, removed the meter installed earlier in the shop of the respondent and reinstalled it in a meter box outside the respondent’s shop. Next six to seven months nothing happened between the parties. But, on 16.10.2006, the respondent informed the applicants that the meter had stopped working, and, on 24th October, 2006, the meter was inspected. It was found to have stopped. The M.S.E.B. immediately removed the meter and installed the new meter. Within 15 days thereafter, the respondent found that even this meter was running rather too fast and showing higher consumption than the actual. He lodged a complaint to the applicants and M.S.E.B. with a request to either get the meter tested and/or replace it. The applicants did not pay any heed to his complaint. They did not replace the meter. So the respondent lodged his complaint on 26th March, 2006 alleging that the applicants had committed offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The grievance of the respondent is that the applicants mischievously changed the seals put on the meter repeatedly and maliciously installed the meters at his premises which were faulty and which were designed to record more consumption than the actual work. 3 The learned Magistrate called for Police report under Section 3 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The police sent a report saying that no offence is made out. Besides, they said the applicants are protected under Section 168 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Despite of this report, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order simply saying that from the contents of document filed with the complaint, it appears that prima facie case for issuing the process under Sections 420, 406, 465 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicants on 22.08.2008. 4 Assuming everything that is stated in the complaint is true, still I failed to see as to how the allegation would amount to “cheating”, “criminal breach of trust” and “forgery”? Assuming that the applicants purposely and intentionally installed faulty meters at the premises of the respondent and harassed the respondent, it would still not amount to cheating, forgery and breach of trust. 5 Prima facie, however it does not appear that the applicants purposely with a view to harass the applicants did something wrong. Admittedly, after the meter was reinstalled in April, 2004, nothing happened till October, 2005 when the respondent reported that the meter had stopped working. Even thereafter, the applicants and M.S.E.B. took prompt action and changed the meter on 24th October, 2006. Apparently, this action was quite prompt and was taken with a view to redress the complaint of the respondent. The new meter thus was installed on 24th October, 2006 and within two weeks the respondent suspected the correctness of the meter. Assuming that the applicants purposely ignored this last complaint in respect of this lastly installed meter, it would not amount to an offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery. There are provisions in the Electricity Act to get the meter tested from independent Agency viz; Electrical Inspector. The respondent should have taken such steps. 6 This complaint thus is not only mischievous but it amounts to 4 abuse of process. Despite of this, I find with regret that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order without application of mind and even ignoring the report of the Police. She did not deal with the report and explained as why she was not accepting the report before passing this order. The impugned order issuing process against the applicants is passed in casual manner. It deserves to be set aside. The application stands allowed. The Criminal Case No. 308 of 2007 stands quashed along with order passed issuing process against the applicants. [ A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ] gas/cri4224.08/ok