A.M. Dhavale, J.

1. The interesting question raised in this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, whether the prosecution of the accused for offences under IPC can be continued when the same acts had resulted into offence u/s 135 of Electricity Act and same has been compounded. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR at C.R. No. 0273/2017, registered at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and u/s 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The basic facts essential to decide this application may be stated as follows :

On 21.07.2017 at 23:11 hrs., the impugned FIR was lodged by Sachin Santosh Lalsare against the present applicant Syed Yakub. The informant is Assistant Engineer in MSEDCL, Harsul Branch, Aurangabad. It was part of duty inter alia to keep watch on theft of electricity. On that day, he at 2:30 p.m. inspected electric meter from the house of the applicant and noticed that one aluminum wire was connected to the electric supply wire to bypass the meter and receive the electric supply without recording meter readings of the same. He seized the meter, conducted seizure panchanama and alleged in the FIR that the applicant had committed economical cheating of the company. On the basis of the FIR, the crime was registered u/s 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 and 135 IPC (it should be 135 of Indian Electricity Act). According to the applicant, the offence under Electricity Act was compounded and he has paid Rs. 12,620/- towards the arrears of electricity charges and compounding fee of Rs.2,000/-. He had received theft assessment bill of Rs. 12,620/-.

3. The applicant objected to the registration of offences under IPC and claimed that offence u/s 135 of Indian Electricity Act was only made out, which has been compounded. The house in question was taken on rent and the applicant was not present in the house. The applicant is holding Class I post of Taluka Agriculture Officer at Soygaon. In view of the above facts, the FIR be quashed.

4. Respondent no.2 (informant) has filed his affidavit justifying the registration of FIR under Electricity Act as well as for offences under IPC. He admitted that, the applicant has deposited Rs.12,620/- towards the theft assessment bill and compounding charges of Rs. 2,000/-. The applicant filed rejoinder-affidavit claiming that at the relevant time he was on duty at Soygaon. He claimed that, in view of the special enactment of Electricity Act, no offence under IPC could have been registered.

5. Heard Shri. Moinuddin Shaikh, learned counsel holding for Shri. S. S. Kazi, counsel for the applicant, Shri. B. E. Yawalkar, learned APP for respondent No. 1 and A. S. Shelke, learned counsel for respondent No 2.

6. At the outset, it must be stated that, the offence u/s 135 of the Indian Electricity Act has been compounded and the applicant cannot be prosecuted for the same now.

7. As far as the plea of the applicant that at the relevant time he was at Soygaon and he has not committed theft of electricity etc. are concerned, those relate to the merits of the case. This Court will not enter into the merits of the case. If the applicant feels that there is no substance, he may apply for discharge.

8. As to crucial question whether the accused can be prosecuted for offences under IPC as well as Electricity Act is concerned, there are following rulings produced.

(i) In Anand Dwivedi v State of M P LEX(MPH) 2013 3 300, two buffaloes died due to electric shock due to stray wires of electric pole. There was illegal connection taken by the applicant from the pole. The FIR was lodged under Sections 135 of Electricity Act and 429 of IPC. After framing of charge, the Special Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to conduct offence u/s 429 IPC and, therefore, separate charge-sheet shall be filed against the applicant in respect of the same. It was held that, the Special Judge has all the powers of Sessions Judge and he could try the offence u/s 429 IPC as well, and once the charge wa