Point of Law : Revisional powers of the High Court can only be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Pooja, Advocate, the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the instant revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sonebhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 194 of 2021 whereby the revisionist’s application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for issuing a direction for registration of an FIR, has been rejected.

3. On 28.07.2021, the revisionist had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging that he is a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. He has let out some portion of his land to a mobile communication company which has installed a mobile tower on the land and has taken an electricity service connection for the same. The revisionist uses electricity for his domestic use from the service connection of the mobile company. The revisionist has let out a building constructed on another part of the said land to one Anuj Kumar for doing some work and electricity from the service connection of the mobile company is being used for that work also.

4. The revisionist has further alleged in the application under Section 156 (3) that some employees of the electricity department asked him not to use electricity from the service connection of the mobile communication company. The revisionist has alleged that the aforesaid employees asked for a sum of Rs.50,000/-for the electricity connection and the revisionist gave them the aforesaid amount in cash without taking any acknowledgement of receipt. After some time, the said persons visited the revisionist’s home again and they demanded a further sum of Rs. 25,000/-for the connection. When the revisionist denied that he would not give any amount in excess of the amount mentioned on the receipt, they abused and threatened him. When some other persons gathered there, they went away.

5. A copy of the aforesaid application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision and the same is not accompanied by a copy of an affidavit filed in support of the application. In the affidavit filed before this Court also, there is no averment that the revisionist had filed an affidavit in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Special Judge called for a report from the Circle Office, Obra in respect of the petitioner’s application under Section 156 (3). The police reported that the revisionist had sent a letter dated 16.06.2021 through registered post upon which an enquiry was held. Upon enquiry, it transpired that the respondent Vivek Kumar was working as Sub-divisional Officer, Arvind Kumar was working as a Junior Engineer and Ashraf Ali was working as Technician Grade 2 cum Accountant in the Sub-divisional Office of U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘U.P.P.C.L.’) at Obra. Vivek Kumar, S.D.O. has since been transferred. U.P.P.C.L. was carrying out a special drive against power theft and as a part of the drive, a vigilance team of U.P.P.C.L. had carried out checking in the premises of the revisionist on 14-04-2021 and had found theft of electricity being committed by him. On 15.04.2021, Case Crime No. 386 of 2021 was registered against the revisionist under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act in Police Station Anti Power Theft, Obera. Earlier, in the year 2015 also, the revisionist was found committing theft of electricity and the then Junior Engineer had lodged Case Crime No. 35 of 22015 against the revisionist. Upon enquiry, prima facie the allegations levelled by the revisionist have not been found to be established and it appears that the revisionist has filed the complaint to put undue pressure on the respondents, who are the officials of U.P.P.C.L.

7. After considering the aforesaid report, on 21.09.2021 the learned Special Judge passed an o