The court emphasized that the extraordinary power for quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that a prima facie case made out based on the allegations in the FIR should not be weighed at the investigation stage.

D.N.Prasad, J.

1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (Ram Pravesh Agrawal) for quashing of the First Information Report (Annexure-3) in Mandu PS Case No. 172/99 dated 21.7.1999 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1207/99 under Secs. 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and under Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code including the entire prosecution launched against the petitioner, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

2. Brief case of the prosecution leading to this application is that on 21.7.1999 a raiding party was organised for the purpose of detecting of energy theft and during the course of raid, it was found that M/s Rishi Cement Company Ltd. was showing 94887 units for the monthly consumption instead of 2,15,000.00 unit and as such Company of which the petitioner is the Managing Director was committing theft of energy of about 1,20,000 units per month and causing loss to the Electricity Board amounting to Rs. 45 lakhs per year. It was also detected in course of raid that M/s Rishi Cement Company Ltd. was using about 5 k.w. of energy in the premises of M/s New Bharat Refractories Ltd. having Consumer No. KJ 677 HT whose electric connection was disconnected on account of non-payment of electric dues amounting to Rs. 1,57,791.00 . It was found that the electric line was extended from M/s Rishi Cement Company to M/s New Bharat Refractories Ltd. and the energy was supplied stealthily and. illegally. The raiding party also seized wires, bulbs, cables, etc. from the premises at the relevant time and for which the seizure-list was also prepared and as such, the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and others of Which the investigation was started.

3. One supplementary affidavit has also been filed from the side of the petitioner stating therein that petitioner had filed another Writ petition on 20.8.1999 under Civil Writ jurisdiction being CWJC No. 2472 of 1999 (R) for quashing of the supplementary bill dated 24.7.1999 for Rs. 89,87,759.00 raised by the Electricity Board and the said Writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.1.2000 with an observation that the petitioner would deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash and Bank guarantee of Rs. 35 lakh from a nationalised Bank. There was also direction to restore the electric line of the petitioner, subject to the condition of the deposit of the amount. The petitioner again preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 38 of 2000 (R) in which the said order passed in CWRJ No. 2472 of 1999 (R) was modified to the extent that the petitioner would deposit Rs. 10 lakh in two instalments of Rs. 5 lakh each and electrical connection of the petitioner was directed to be restored within two days of the deposit of the first instalment. Further, the relevant part of the order dated 27.1.2000 directing the petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee of Rs. 35 lakh was deleted from the order. The petitioner already deposited Rs. 10 lakh in two instalments and subsequently the electric line of the petitioner has been restored and there is no fresh bill in existence.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, State as well as Electricity Board.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that the said raid was conducted in absence of the petitioner which has been admitted by the informant in the FIR and there is nothing specific or direct allegation or evidence against the petitioner that he had committed theft of electricity rather the allegation of theft of electricity is on the basis of presumption on hypothetical conclusion. It is also argued that there is no allegation that the meter was tempered, rather the protective seals pertaining to the meter were found intact and in order and so the question of electric theft does not arise. It is also argued that the Company of which the petitioner is the Managing Director is a bona fide consumer and