V. B. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking quashing of the criminal complaints filed by respondent No. 1 under Sections 135 and 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of this case are that a complaint under Section 135 read with Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been filed by respondent No. 1 against the present petitioner on the allegation that on 21st june, 2006 the officers of respondent No. 1 inspected premises of petitioner bearing No. F- 92, First Floor, Near Shanti Swaroop Complex, Munirka, New Delhi and it was found that the said premises was being used by the petitioner and no electricity meter was installed there for supply of electricity to the said premises. However, it was found that petitioner was illegally using the electricity by tapping the respondent No. 1's Bus-Bar with the aid of illegal tappings/wires, which were further connected to a distribution board and then to the connected load of the said premises. Thus, the petitioner was found to be using, consuming and abstracting the electricity illegally by directly tapping the Bus-Bar of respondent No. 1 and committing direct theft of electricity and the theft bill as per DERC Regulations and tarrif order was raised by respondent No. 1 for Rs. 2,29,099/- which was served upon the petitioner but the petitioner failed to pay the theft bill. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was bailed out by the trial court subject to condition that he shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with respondent No. 1 by the next date against the theft bill. However, it appears that the said bail order has not been complied with and instead of complying with the bail order, the present petition has been filed. ( 4 ) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is neither the owner nor tenant of the building No. F- 92, First floor, Near Shanti Swaroop Complex, Munirka, New Delhi and he is not related to the premises any manner and has nothing to do with the electricity theft and has been falsely implicated only for the reasons that respondent No. 1 could not find the original person with name Ashok and also there can be several person named ashok. However, father's name of Ashok is not mentioned in the complaint and summons. Petitioner has been living at 80-B, Munrika Village, New Delhi and has got no concern with premises for which the electricity bill in question has been raised. ( 5 ) AS per documents placed on record by respondent No. 1, prima facie, it is clear that the petitioner is user of the electricity and during the course of inspection, it was found that direct theft of electricity was being taken by illegal wires from respondent No. 1's Bus-Bar and no meter was found at the site of the first floor of the premises. The bill in question has also been issued in the name of present petitioner. So, prima facie involvement of petitioner is there in this case. It is a question of evidence as to whether there is any direct theft of electricity and if so, is the involvement of petitioner is there. The present petition has been filed at very initial stage of proceedings and all these matters require evidence and at this stage no finding can be given with regard to the non involvement of petitioner in this case. ( 6 ) HENCE, the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is pre-mature and not maintainable at this stage and same is hereby dismissed as such.