The court's inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, for the offence punishable under Sec. 135(1)(a)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003(for short 'the Act').

2. Factual Background

a) On 16/12/2018 L.W.1-A.Srikanth, the-then Assistant Engineer, DPE-II, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle inspected the house of the Accused and found out that he was using single phase supply dishonestly and income supply barrel wires had been tapped before the meter with the help of 10 meters length PVC brown coloured Aluminum wires and were connected to separate switch board and thereby indulged in theft of energy dishonestly to his house, due to which APSPDCL sustained loss to the tune of Rs.16, 022.00.

b) Based on the complaint lodged by L.W.1, a case in Crime No.4422 of 2017 for the offence under Sec. 135 (1) (a) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 before Vigilance and APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore, was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, which culminated into C.C.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore for the above said offence. The said C.C is sought to be quashed by Petitioner/Accused, vide this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit there is a delay of five days in lodging the report and there is also delay of 42 days in sending the F.I.R to the concerned Court. He would also submit that though the petitioner filed W.P.No.5144 of 2018 and obtained interim order on payment of 50% of the assessment and thereafter the electricity connection was restored, the respondents had lodged the present complaint. He would further submit that since the petitioner lodged a report to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau stating that the Electricity Department and Revenue Department had colluded with the owners of illegal bore wells and had given connections without having permission, the respondents bore grudge and implicated the petitioner in the present case. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings against petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner would squarely attract the offence alleged against the petitioner and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, for the offence punishable under Sec. 135(1)(a)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003?

Determination by the Court

7. While exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., it must be kept in mind that the Code envisages that the same is not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Sec. 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reason