HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon’bie Mr. T.P.Sha:ma, J Cr. M.P. No. 197 12008 ng Nain Sih PateL aged about 35 years5 son af Shri Tikaram patel, R’s Vin. Kandurpaii, P3. Sarangarh, Distk. Police Staton, Sa'‘rangarh, Déstrict Raigarh. (CG). 2. Chhattisarh State Electricity Board g (ut Raigarh(CG) through Assistant Engineer Distribion), CSEB, Sarangarh, District 3’ Dhani Ram Patel, aged aout 60 years, Sic Shri Hathi Ram Patel, Rlc Village Chandurpali, P.S. Saraarh, istrict Raigarh (CG) Mr. Roop Naik counsel for the petioner. ti Mr. RR. Sinha PL for the respondent No.1! State ORALORDER (1 8.7.2008) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. This petition has been filed fr quashment of the registration of the offence punishable under stion 35 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The proceedings are challenged on the ground that the trial Court has committed an illegality by directing registration of the criminal case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 429 IPC. 3. Learned unsel for the petitioner submits that the non appiicant No.3 reported the matter against the applicant for the offenc punishable under section 429 IPC. The investigation took place for the offence punishable under section 429 IPC but at the time of tiling of challan, the offence punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act was added and the respondent No.2 was intimated about the same who in turn filed i the complaint. Accordingly, respondent No.2 tiled the complaint against the petitioner on 17.3.2007 on the basis of which Court took cognizance ’\3 in the matter which is not in accordance with law. PETITIONER i b ng D ec 1 o co e Raigarh(CG} Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the -1, 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the charge sheet filed against the petitioner. 5. According to the charge sheet, first the FIR was lodged for the offence punishable under section 429 IPC; however, at the time of tiling of challan offence punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act was also added under intimation to respondent No.2 who in turn filed the complaint before the concerned Special Judge. 6. After taking into consideration the complaint, learned triai Court has taken cognizance in the matter: under section 135 of the Electricity Act and rejected the objection filed by the petitioner. 7. No proforma as argued by the counsel for the petitioner is required for making complaint against the offender. Triai Court was competent to take cognizance in the matter on the basis of complaint as required under section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 8. This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code. interference in exercise of the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code can be made in rarest of rare cases only with a view to give effect to the order under the Code to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to othenivisesecure the ends of justice. 9. On careful examination of the charge sheet and other documents filed along with the complaint, l am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in directing the registration of the offence punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act. 10. Consequently, the petition has no substance and the same liable to be dismissed. lt is accordingly dismissed. Fssi;7" r sdl "LP. SHARMA Judge . mmesmms ’