JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 16.10.2015 (Ann.1) passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act Cases) (Addl. Sessions Judge No.1), Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No.1/2007 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.”

2. The genesis of the dispute lies in the complaint submitted by the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited against accused Jagdish s/o Lal Chand and Raju s/o Kishan under Sections 135 and 151 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2003’), before the learned court below, alleging therein that while inspecting House No.112, Shiv Colony, on 24.06.2004 at about 6:20 p.m., it was found that the said accused persons were engaged in the theft of electricity; whereupon, cognizance was taken by the learned court below and the proceedings accordingly commenced.

2.1 During the course of the proceedings before the learned court below, accused-Jagdish filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that on the relevant date, he was neither the owner of the house in question, nor the same was in his possession. It was also alleged by accused-Jagdish that in regard to ownership of the house in question, on 02.03.1999, Smt. Leelawati @ Leela Devi (petitioner herein) had instituted a civil suit against one Lal Chand s/o Surajpuri before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Sriganganagar for injunction; in the said suit, the petitioner herein had claimed that she was the lawful owner of the house in question, but the said Lal Chand was in an unauthorized possession of the house, and thus, injunction was prayed by her in the suit; the said suit was stated to be pending on the date of inspection in question i.e. 24.06.2004.

2.2 The said application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 16.10.2015, while taking cognizance against the petitioner herein under Section 135 of the Act of 2003, while ordering issuance of a bailable warrant in a sum of Rs.500/- against her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner was not present on the spot of inspection on the relevant date, and neither her signatures were taken on the documents alleged to have been prepared on the spot, nor she was given any notice in connection with the said theft of electricity.

3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below, merely taking into account the factum of institution of the aforementioned civil suit in regard to the house in question, took cognizance against the present petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 16.10.2015, for the offence under Section 135 of the Act of 2003.

3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that as per the settled proposition of law, civil proceedings cannot be read in evidence in criminal proceeding, more particularly, when the civil suit instituted by the petitioner has been dismissed by the concerned civil court, and therefore, on that count alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below deserves to be quashed and set aside, especially since the order is not reasoned nor is a speaking order, failing to have duly considered the statutory intent of the powers conferred upon the competent Court to array a person as accused, in an ongoing trial, under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

3.4 Learned counsel, while harping upon the fact that the petitioner herein is in no way connected with the alleged theft in question, submitted that the learned court below, without taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has passed the impugned order of cognizance, and thus, the same is not sustainable in the eye