* 1 * WP-1175-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1175 OF 2011 Deepak Devji More .... Petitioner V/S. State of Maharashtra (Sakinaka Police Station) ..... Respondent Mr. Santosh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State-respondent. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 8th November, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashing of Electricity Special Case No. 27 of 2009 registered at the instance of Senior Engineer of Reliance Energy for the offence of theft of electricity of 90,993 units of the value of Rs.11,54,356/- punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner had filed application for discharge (Exhibit-17) before the trial Court. That application came to be dismissed by the order dated 18th March, 2011. 2. The complaint alleges that the petitioner had rigged the electricity meter installed at his commercial premises to slow down it’s running so that it recorded lesser number of units than the actual consumption. In this manner he committed theft of electricity. 3. The petitioner claims that on 14th February, 2008 he had visited * 2 * WP-1175-2011 the office of the complainant for making payment of outstanding electricity charges of Rs.11,54,356/- and had furnished an undertaking for making payment of the outstanding bill. He could not comply with the undertaking immediately. But was able to clear the outstanding by 18th February, 2009. In the meantime, the criminal complaint came to be filed. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that because the petitioner failed to pay the balance amount, the complaint came to be registered against him. He argues that had the petitioner paid the entire amount, no case would have been registered against him. In my opinion, there can be no substance in such speculation since the civil liability of the petitioner to pay the charges for the electricity consumed by him is entirely distinct from his criminal liability for theft of the electricity. I have perused the copy of the FIR annexed to the petition and the order of the trial Court rejecting the application for discharge. In my opinion, the trial Court has been correct in rejecting the application for discharge which was filed on the same grounds as agitated before this Court. Since the FIR makes out prima-facie case of commission of offence by the petitioner, there is no question of quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 3 * WP-1175-2011