IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

131-2 Date of decision : 18.02.2026 AGM (OP) Sub Division, DHBVN and another ...... Appellants versus Rajender Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Defendants are in second appeal, aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court. For convenience, parties are being referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as defendants and respondent as plaintiff.

2. Brief resume of facts is that the plaintiff is user of electricity connection bearing No.CC-1D-2670. The officials of the defendant department visited his premises and removed the old electricity meter and replaced the same with a new one. Thereafter, plaintiff received two memos dated 18.06.2016 alleging theft of electricity under Section 135 of Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.95,457/- and compounding amount of Rs.10,000/-. It is further alleged that in the checking report, it is not clear whether the seal was broken or meter seal was found doubtful. No notice was served to the plaintiff who requested defendants several times not to disconnect his electricity connection but all in vain. Hence, the plaintiff was forced to file the present suit.

3. Trial Court Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. However, in appeal, the impugned judgment and decree was rightly set aside and appeal of appellant/plaintiff was allowed as defendant failed to lead any evidence regarding service of notice to the plaintiff before imposing penalty.

4. The issue involved in the present regular second appeal relates to jurisdiction of Civil Court qua disputes wherein the supplier alleges theft of electricity against consumer.

5. Case wherein theft of electricity is claimed by supplier, no FIR was registered and cognizance of complaint was not taken by Magistrate, this Court had an occasion in RSA No.1952 of 2024, titled as “Sub Divisional Officer and another vs. Smt. Kamla Devi” decided on 27.10.2025 to deal with the issue in hand observing as under:-

“xx xx xx

21. In view of the discussion held hereinabove and the scheme of the Act of 2003, it is held as under:

(i) Once theft of electricity is discovered by the authorities, they are empowered to disconnect the supply of electricity. Under Section 145 of 2003 Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking injunction on such act by an officer/authority empowered under 2003 Act to disconnect the electricity.

(ii) Within 24 hours of such disconnection, competent officer is obligated to lodge complaint, in writing, relating to commission of theft of electricity in police station having jurisdiction.

(iii) In case, the consumer pays the assessed amount of electricity charges, the electricity will be restored within 48 hours of such deposit. However, it needs to be noticed herein that such assessment and corresponding deposit, is without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint in writing.

(iv) The Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 135 of the Act upon a complaint, in writing, made by competent officer/authority or upon report of a police officer filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

(v) Offences prescribed under Sections 135 to 140 or Section 150, are cognizable and non-bailable offences.

(vi) Once the police takes cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150, the first time offender can claim compounding of offence, as prescribed under Section 152. If the payment is made, a person in custody in connection with the offence, has to be set at liberty and no proceedings be instituted or continued against him in any criminal Court.

(vii) Acceptance of such payment, shall amount to acquittal within the meaning of Section 300 of Cr.P.C., 1973.

(viii) States may notify in the official gazette Special Courts to try offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 an