Hon’ble Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.—Heard Shri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhara, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet No. 349 of 2005 dated 30.10.2005 arising out of case crime No. 1474 of 2005 under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Act’), Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao and also summoning order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Special Judge (E.C.Act), Unnao in Special Trial No. 06 of 2006 State v. Ashok Garg and others.

3. On 29.8.2005, a raid was conducted by Electrical Enforcement Department under the leadership of Mohd. Manjoor Alam Khan, Assistant Engineer, Enforcement at Radhey Solvent Premises at about 1.00 p.m. Electric meter was checked wherein tampering was found. Meter was sealed. Accused Ashok Garg, owner of M/s. Radhey Solvent Factory absconded from the scene of occurrence. It was an offence under Section 135 of the Act and Rule 12 of Electricity Rules, 2005. Thereafter the electric connection of M/s. Indo Prosoya Food Private Limited Unit No. 1, Akarampur Unnao was checked wherein tampering was also found in the meter. Memo was prepared. On the basis of memo, First Information Report was lodged at police station Kotwali, District Unnao at case crime No. 1475 of 2005 under Section 135 of the Act. Matter was investigated. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet has been filed against law. Initially learned counsel has placed reliance upon Section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 and submitted that a complaint should have been filed but the charge-sheet is submitted, which is against law.

5. It is further submitted that investigating Officer has failed to consider that shares of the company namely; M/s. Garg India Limited are transferred to new company namely; M/s. Indo Prosoya Food Private Limited, Akarampur Unnao. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already resigned from the post of Director. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not be held liable for criminal liability as neither he was Director of the new company nor he was present at the spot. He had no concern to the new company.

6. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609, S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another, (2005) 8 SCC 89, M.A.A. Annamalai v. State of Karnataka and another, (2010) 8 SCC 524, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and another v. Datar Switchgear Limited and others, (2010) 10 SCC 479 and Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 SCC 781.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has placed reliance upon Vishal Agrawal and another v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and another, (2014) 3 SCC 696, wherein it has been held that it is not necessary that complaint should be filed, rather the procedure contained in the Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable. It is further submitted that it was incumbent upon the petitioner under clause 4.44 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 that in case of transfer of ownership or occupancy of the premises mutation has to be made. Petitioner has not moved any application for change of ownership. No information was given about merger of new company. It is further submitted that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not legally maintainable. Question of fact could not be looked into by this Court and in petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. factual controversies could only be looked into by the learned trial Court.

8. Section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under :

“151. Cognizance of offences.—No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the Appropriate Govern