IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51119 of 2021 SAMLIYA KUSHWAH Versus THE M.P.M.K.V.V.C. CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Jai Prakash Kushwah - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Bhargava- Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

ORDER The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the private complaint ST 660/2021 and order dated 06.04.2021 whereby the cognizance has been taken by the learned Special Court of Electricity Act Karera, District Shivpuri.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/Engineer in the respondent Department filed a complained under Section 135 of the Electricity Act alleging that on 30/9/20, during a checking of electricity theft in Okhla, Gram Samaliya, conducted by Junior Engineer Manendra Singh and Lineman Yogendra Mishra, it was found that the accused was stealing electricity by using a 5 horsepower irrigation connection in water tanker for commercial purposes, causing a loss to the electricity department. A spot inspection report was prepared. The accused was stealing electricity by using a 5 horsepower connection, resulting in a loss to the electricity department.

The trial court has taken cognizance vide order dated 06.04.2021. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

Learned counsel for the the petitioner submitted that the act of the respondents of enhancement of the charge of the applicant electricity bill suo-moto is bad in law. It is arbitrary and not according to the transfer policy. When the petitioner had made an application for reducing the charge from 5 HP to 3 HP in the year of 2016 then, without any demand by the applicant, respondent/authority have no authority to enhance the charge of the applicant electricity from 3 HP to 5 HP. Two legal aspects have been agitated here. one is the when without permission if authority changes the charge of electricity, it is the fault of the authority and second is that when 5 HP already has been mentioned in the electricity bill of the applicant, then how it comes under the theft of 5 HP electricity using. The petitioner is the illiterate agriculturist, and it is also constructive note to the society that the accepting charge upon the electricity bill has not been flexural automatically without application of demand. The respondent has not sent any notice to the applicant. The entire circumstances of the case reveal that the petitioner is being harassed by the respondents. Hence, this petition be allowed and the order of the trial court dated 06.04.2021 along with private complaint lodged at S.T. 660/2021 be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that when a sudden checking was made on 30.09.2020 Samaliya Ki Tek, the petitioner was found filling a tanker through 5 HP motor which is sanctioned for agriculture. The connection for the agricultural purpose is given on subsidized rates and the petitioner was using it for commercial purpose and he was also selling the water. The petitioner has caused a loss of Rs.40,556/- to the department by illegally using his agriculture pump connection for non-domestic use.

When petitioner did not respond then a complaint case no.660/2021 was filed before Special Court and vide order dated 06.04.2021, the Special Court took cognizance and has issued summon to the petitioner. The petitioner never appeared before Special Court and has illegally obtained copies of documents and has filed present petition along with some more documents as a defense which are not part of complaint case no.660/2021 and these documents cannot be considered in petition u/s 482 CrPC. Hence, this petition be deserves to be dismissed.

Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the record with due care.

After hearing the rival contentions and from perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner is trying to adduce his defens