IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 01.04.2026 Avtar Singh ...... Appellant versus Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala Now PSPCL and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Charanpal Singh, Advocate (through V.C.)

for the appellant.

Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

CM-3951-C-2026 This is an application filed under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC seeking restoration of the main appeal to its original number and status.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed.

Appeal is restored to its original number. Main case is ordered to be taken up on Board today itself.

Main case

1. Plaintiff 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 plaintiff and respondents as defendants.

2. In brief, plaintiff has an electricity connection bearing No.R42MF630042F in his name and pays electricity bills regularly as per consumption. Plaintiff received a provisional notice dated 01.10.2008 issued by defendants in which they directed him to deposit Rs.1,79,195/- on the allegations of theft of energy by putting direct wire from the bathroom plug in the grip attached to the board near the meter. Thereafter, plaintiff received a bill dated 13.12.2008 of Rs.1,80,370/- along with sundry charges of Rs.1,79,195/- payable upto 26.12.2008. The defendants removed the meter of plaintiff before 26.12.2008 without providing any opportunity to plaintiff to pay the amount. The complaint filed by the plaintiff under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act has been dismissed by District Consumer Forum. Hence the present suit.

3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Further, Lower Appellate Court upheld the findings recorded by 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 t