Criminal Misc. No.M No.1171 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M No.1171 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.5.2009 T.Keshav Reddy ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Raman Sharma , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of FIR No.133 dated 28.4.2006 under Sections 4, 20-A, 25 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('the Telegraph Act' for short) and Sections 379, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Phagwara, District Kapurthala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Prosecution case, as per the FIR, as reproduced in para 2 of the petition is as under:- Statement of Sh.Arup Dass, TTS, Divisional Engineer, Criminal Misc. No.M No.1171 of 2009 2 Vigilance Telegram Telecommunications Department, Government of India, New Delhi. He stated that he is posted as Divisional Engineer, Government of India. Today Sh.Garish Kumar, TTS, Divisional Engineer and he stated that he is appointed as Engineer and has come to know that Sh.Keshav Reddy son of Balram Reddy resident of Kukat Palli District Hyderabad and Raj Singh resident of Ludhiana are running a Bogus Exchange in Phagwara in the area of Central Town near Parmar Plaza and they are running for making long distance calls and in this way they are causing lot of harm to the Government of India and it can be harmful for the safety of country and in this way they are defrauding the Government of India and necessary action must be taken against them and hence, action be taken against them. Statement has been heard and is correct.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed as the Court could not take cognizance of an offence on the basis of the report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. As per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, a complaint was liable to be filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Biswanath Patra v. Dividional Engineer (E) S&LP and another 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 836 and M/s Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. Criminal Misc. No.M No.1171 of 2009 3 and others v. State of Haryana and another 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 381. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed this petition and submitted that now four prosecution witnesses have already been examined during trial. In the present case, FIR in question has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 4, 20-A and 25 of the Telegraph Act and Sections 379, 420 and 120-B IPC. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner and his co-accused were running a bogus Exchange in Phagwara and were causing a huge loss to State Exchequer. After investigation of the case, challan/final report was presented before the trial Court on 10.11.2006. Charges were framed against the petitioner and his co-accused on 7.2.2007. As per the learned State counsel, out of seven witnesses, four prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The present petition has, however, been filed seeking quashing of FIR in the year 2009. On this score only the petition is liable to be dismissed. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the telegraph Act, there is no specific provision that cognizance of offence can be taken by the Court only on the basis of a complaint made in writing by the competent authority. So far as the Electricity Act, 2003 is concerned, Section 151 of the said Act provides that no Court should take cognizance of the offence under Sections 135 and Criminal Misc. No.M No.1171 of 2009 4 138 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the appropriate Government or appropriate Commission or Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee. Hence, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out at this stage as the trial has already commenced and four prosecution witnesses have been examined. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 30, 2009 anita