222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 16.05.2025 BHOOP SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Ms. Ritu Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG, Haryana.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by Bhoop Singh-petitioner against the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby, the application seeking his discharge under Section 239 read with 245 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 11801, dated 10.11.2017, under Sections 135, 151 and 138 of Electricity Act, registered at Police Station I&P Faridabad, has been dismissed.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a bona fide tenant of the premises owned by Sharvan Kumar Mangla, having taken possession on 15.07.2011 and paid rent and electricity charges as per the bills issued by DHBVNL Palwal. The electricity connection was installed in the name of the owner, who was the registered consumer since 2004, and the petitioner had no knowledge or control over the sanctioned load or technical aspects of the connection. The petitioner was not informed of any overload or irregularity, nor was any notice issued to him regarding assessment of theft under Section 135 read with 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The notice was issued only to the owner, Sharvan Kumar Mangla.

3. It has been further contended that at the time of the electricity department's inspection on 15.07.2011, the meter was sealed in an iron box, regularly checked by the meter reader, and no tampering was reported. The meter was subsequently removed and sealed without any valid reason, allegedly in collusion between the owner and officials, as the owner was pressuring the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner continued to pay electricity bills, including average bills issued after the meter was removed, through cheques, demonstrating bona fide conduct and absence of any intent to commit theft.

4. Counsel submits that the petitioner had a civil dispute with the owner, which resulted in a decree in his favour in a suit for permanent injunction by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Palwal. The FIR No. 1180 of 2017 under Sections 135, 138, and 151 of the Electricity Act was registered at the instance of DHBVNL Palwal and the owner, allegedly as a result of conspiracy and to harass the petitioner after he refused to vacate the premises. The criminal complaint was also sent against the owner, and there is no material to show any active role or connivance of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is argued that the FIR was registered after a lapse of more than six months from the date of the alleged incident, with no explanation for the delay, which casts doubt on the bona fides of the prosecution. No opportunity of hearing or notice was given to the petitioner before initiating criminal proceedings, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, Palwal, and has complied with the conditions imposed, including deposit of 25% of the legal liability. The petitioner vacated the premises on 31.01.2020 in compliance with the directions issued by this Court. The petitioner has filed a petition for quashing the FIR, in which notice has already been issued to the respondent, and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition, arguing that the presence of the petitioner on the premises during the electricity department's inspection and his admission of being the actual user and bill payer establish a prima facie case against him. She has contended that the petitioner, as the actual beneficiary of any alleged tampering with the electricity meter, cannot seek discharge. The actual owner would not have benefited from ta