JUDGMENT

Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 486/2015 lodged at Police Station APT, Jodhpur City for the offences under sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The F.I.R. mentioned above came to be lodged by the respondent no. 2 Assistant Engineer (B-II), J.V.V.N.L., Jodhpur with an allegation that physical verification was carried out in the disputed shop at the Chopasni Housing Board and it was found that theft of electricity was being conducted therein. The meter was seized and VCR was prepared. Thereafter the petitioner was notified to deposit the amount of civil liability and the penalty amount imposed upon him by the respondents. The petitioner duly complied with the said direction and deposited the penalty amount with the respondents. It being the first offence of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the above F.I.R. on the strength of provisions of Section 152 of the Electricity Act.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Parvej Moyal relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar v. The State of Maharashtra being I.A. No. 117535 of 2017 in Cr. Appeal No. 156 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3670/2017 decided on 22.1.2018 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act are both compoundable by virtue of Section 152 of the Act. He thus urged that as the petitioner has deposited composition charges with the respondents, the authorities be directed to compound the offences and the F.I.R. should be quashed on the strength of such composition.

4. Mr. Vikram Choudhary learned counsel representing the respondents is in a position to dispute the said position of law.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above and the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Suresh Ganpati v. State of Maharashtra (supra) relied upon by the petitioner wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"(4) The Compounding of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer." It will be seen that both Sections 135 and 138, which impose a maximum sentence of three years, both deal with theft of electricity. The High Court has taken a very narrow view of Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is related stricto senso to Section 135 since that section alone deals with the offence of theft, but would not specifically refer to Section 138 which only indirectly relates to the offence of theft. Both the respondent as well as the petitioner before us have moved the High Court stating that Section 138 would also be so subsumed and have continued to argue the same position before us. We are of the view that this is correct in law inasmuch as the language of Section 152 specifically states ......"an offence of theft" which according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, as well as Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, states that one meaning of 'an' is 'any'. If the word 'any' is substituted for the word 'an' in Section 152, it becomes clear that any offence relating to the theft of electricity is also within the ken of Section 152.

Section 138 also relates to theft of electricity, be it through maliciously injuring meters, and is therefore also within Section 152, and can therefore be compounded. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. We have been informed by learned counsel for the intervenor that the appellant before us has been prosecuted for perjury and that the proceeding in that behalf is pending. We say nothing about the aforesaid proceedings. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands allowed."

6. This Court is of the opinion that since the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that both the offences i.e. offences under Section 135 as well as 138 of th