Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65630 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33718 of 2024 Applicant :- Girish Varshney Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,Neetu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel appearing for applicant and Sri Anuj Tripathi holding brief of Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 03.12.2021, cognizance order dated 26.06.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 737 of 2024 (State vs. Girish Varshney) arising out of Case Crime no. 2013 of 2021 u/s 135 Indian Electricity Act, PS- Anti Power Theft Thana Hathras, District Hathras pending in court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Hathras. 3. It is the case of the applicant that after receiving information in respect of electricity theft, opposite party no. 2 proceeded with certain employees of the Department of opposite party no. 3 along with Police personnel and conducted raid in rice mill available at Chintagadhi, Alipur road, Hathras having connection no. 433000146/781726674533 having sanction load of 300 KVA and the same was operated by applicant and he has been mentioned in the FIR registered at Case Crime no. 2103 of 2021 as operator/partner of concerned rice mill since at the conduction of raid the electricity was being theft and used by applicant only otherwise the detail of the owner of the rice mill is also available in the FIR but authorized connection holder Mukesh Chauhan was not present at the time of lodging FIR. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that once it has been found by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 that if in any case the illegal connection in shape of electricity theft has been utilized and used for operation of the rice mill and the applicant is having role of operator/partner, the same comes under the ambit of Section 149 of Electricity Act which is attracting offence by Companies and in explanation clause it has been further explained under the Act itself that company denotes, firm, group of certain other individuals also. 5. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the institution of FIR itself under Section 135 Electricity Act is against all cannons of fairness and the same is contrary to the procedure available in the Electricity Act, 2003. 6. Per contra, Sri Anuj Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Alok Mishra submitted that at the time of raid it has been informed by the available employees of the rice mill that although the authorized connection holder is Mukesh Chauhan but at present it is applicant who is holding control of the rice mill and it is being operated by him as partner and as such the FIR has been lodged against the applicant only under Section 135 of Electricity Act. 7. Learned AGA seconded the argument raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 3 and justified the action of the prosecution by way of vehemently opposing the prayer as made in the application. 8. After having the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear and the same has been admitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 3 that authorized electricity connection holder was one Mukesh Chauhan and the case of electricity theft which is surfaced on the date of conduction of raid on dated 11.03.2021 and the entire liability has been fastened upon the applicant only on the information received through certain workers who were rendering their duties in the rice mill, otherwise neither the applicant was available at the time of incident nor any documentary proof or evidence has been received before institution of FIR at Case Crime no. 2103 of 2021. 9. So far as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant in respect of attraction of Section 149 of Electricity Act is concerned, the same seems to be justified since the electricity which was alleged to be used by theft is only for purpose of operating rice mill which might be a company or firm, moreover applicant has been mentioned as one of the operator/partner of rice mill meaning thereby the offence whatsoever has been surfaced was offence against the company, not against the individual and as such lodging and registering case under Section 135 of Electricity Act is not at all justified and the same is against the procedure as defined in the Electricity Act, 2003 itself. 10. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances and in the light of the absence of relevant sections while proceeding with institution of present case, entire proceeding of Case no. 737 of 2024 (State vs. Girish Varshney) arising out of Case Crime no. 2103 of 2021 under Section 135 of Electricity Act, PS- Anti Power Theft Thana Hathras, District Hathras pending before learned court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Hathras is hereby set aside. 11. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. 12. However, the above mentioned order will not preclude the authorities of opposite party no. 3 for proceeding in pursuance to relevant sections available against the crime, if any surfaced in respect of company/firm. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad