IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

131-1 Date of decision : 18.02.2026 S.D.O. Op. Sub Division, DHBVN and another ...... Appellants versus Ramphal ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Defendants are 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 appellants as defendants and respondent as plaintiff.

2. In brief, plaintiff being a consumer of defendant-Nigam, used to regularly pay the electricity bills when generated. Defendants prepared a checking report dated 26.01.2019 and levelled allegations of theft of electricity against him alleging that he was indulging in theft of electricity by taking direct connection from the transformer showing him as non-consumer. Therefore, on the basis of said checking report, defendants issued two memos dated 07.02.2019 whereby a sum of Rs.1,38,263/- has been assessed as penalty and sum of Rs.40,000/- was imposed as compounding charges. The plaintiff is not running any business at the alleged site. No notice was issued to the plaintiff prior to assessment as per electricity rules. Plaintiff requested defendants to withdraw both memos and not to recover the amount, but all in vain, forcing plaintiff to file the instant suit.

3. Trial Court decreed the suit filed by plaintiff, setting aside the checking report and two memos dated 07.02.2019 restraining the defendants from affecting recovery of total amount of Rs.1,78,263/-. Further, Lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of Trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs.

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) St