HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7583 of 2008 Date : 12.10.2011 Between : Gajula Venkateswarlu. …..Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7583 of 2008 ORDER : Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Jogram Tejavat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.5381 of 2008 on the file of Anti Power Theft Squad Station, Khammam. The petitioner is a member of Judicial service and he was working as Junior Civil Judge, Madhira in Khammam District and was residing in the quarter allotted to him at Madhira. On 11.11.2008, the Lineman inspected the premises bearing No.3253/1 of the petitioner, and alleging that he has connected power supply to his 2 tonn air conditioner by tapping the service wire with a 7/20 black copper wire and thus committed theft of energy, a case is registered in Crime No.5381 of 2008 for the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In this petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he has joined at Madhira on 09.05.2008 and that there were two Attenders by name Banoth Venkata Ramana and Mobin Ahmed, and as they were not permitted to avail summer vacation, they bore grudge against the petitioner and connected the live wires of calling bell to the table in the Chambers, and on his complaint, a crime was registered in Crime No.75 of 2008 for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC. It is stated that he was on leave from 06.11.2008 to 09.11.2008 and that the service metre is located in the ground floor of the quarter, which was not locked in his absence. The allegation of the petitioner is that it is the mischief committed by the Attenders, against whom, a complaint is filed by him and that the allegation made against him is false. In this criminal petition, it is contended by the learned senior counsel for petitioner Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is gross abuse of the process. The very fact that the inspecting authorities have come along with the media persons itself shows that it is a designed act on the part of respondents to register a case against the petitioner. Whether there is involvement of the Attenders of the petitioner in the alleged theft of energy by directly connecting power supply to the air conditioner, is a matter for investigation. Merely because a crime is registered against the Attenders on the complaint of the petitioner in Crime No.75/2008 for the alleged offence under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC, the same is no ground to quash the crime registered against the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the quarter in question in which the theft of energy is alleged, is allotted to the petitioner and is being occupied by him. With regard to the presence of media, the same is also explained by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit, stating that it is a coincidence and he has not informed the media either before entering into the premises or after inspection. It is stated that knowing about the incident, media persons have come on their own and covered the news in the press with regard to the alleged theft of energy. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that if the complaint is taken as it is, it constitutes an offence of theft of energy, and whether the petitioner is liable for the alleged offence or not, is a matter for investigation, but having regard to the contents of the complaint, it cannot be termed as abuse of the process, as pleaded by the learned senior counsel. In any event, with regard to the allegation of theft of energy, it is a matter for investigation and as the petitioner is presently in service, while I am not inclined to quash the proceedings, direct the respondents not to take any steps for arrest of the petitioner till the investigation is completed and final report is filed. It is open for the respondents to take further steps in accordance with law, after filling of final report. Subject to the above directions, the criminal petition is disposed of. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th October 2011 ajr