IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

243 Date of decision : 18.02.2026 Sub Divisional Officer (OP) ...... Appellant versus Sunder Lal ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate for respondent.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Defendant is in second appeal, aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. For convenience, parties are being referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellant as defendants and respondent as plaintiff.

2. In brief, plaintiff is a consumer of electricity from defendant department. It was alleged in the checking report dated 03.05.2012 that at the time of checking of premises, two PVC wires were found to be connected directly from the transformer and on the basis of the same, officials of the defendant conducted proceedings of theft of electricity against the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants officials came to the premises of the plaintiff and installed electricity meter outside his premises but did not remove the said wire even after his request. Under protest, plaintiff deposited the amount of Rs.71,094/- vide receipts No.252 and 253 dated 10.11.2012. An application was moved by plaintiff before office of defendant to return the said amount of Rs.71,094/-, but requests were not acceded to by defendant department forcing plaintiff to file the present suit. 3. Trial Court decreed the suit filed by plaintiff, thereby directing the defendants to adjust the amount paid by the plaintiff under the guise of impugned notices in the future electricity bills of the plaintiff. Further, Lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

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