(2025:JHHC:34405) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2833 of 2020 1. Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 52 years, son of late Radheshyam Jaiswal, resident of Contractor’s Area, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831001 2. Ram Singh, aged about 78 years, son of late C.P. Singh, resident of Gurudwara Road, P.O. & P.S.-Mango, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831012 .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunil Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, resident of not known to the petitioner, was working for gain as The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Ghatshila, Jharkhand, State Electricity Board, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East) …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Salona Mittal, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2-JUVNL : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Jamshedpur in Chakulia P.S. Case No. 66 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 557 of 2010 by which cognizance has been taken of the offences punishable under (2025:JHHC:34405) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and to quash the entire criminal proceeding of that case. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners committed theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.3,93,00,000/- by tampering with the meter and metering system and also by destroying the meters with intention to tamper the evidence of such theft. The stolen electricity was used by M/s Sukh Sagar Metals Private Limited and the petitioners at the relevant time were the directors of the said company. 4. Police took up investigation of the said Chakulia P.S. Case No. 66 of 2010 and after completion of investigation, police found the allegation against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 5. The learned Special Judge (Electricity), Jamshedpur vide order dated 25.01.2019 has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, based on the charge sheet submitted by the police after investigation. 6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and it is not possible that meter can be tampered with inside the factory premises but the same is possible only at the substation of the JSEB. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that though a surprise inspection (2025:JHHC:34405) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 was carried out on 05.11.2009 and frivolous allegation of tampering with the meter was made but after much verification no anomaly of any nature was found. It is then submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that on 09.11.2010 the meter of the factory got burnt due to electrical short circuit and during the course of inspection after such burning of the meter, the allegation was made that the petitioners have intentionally burnt the same, by applying external forces, in order to sabotage the metering system and to destroy the evidence of theft of electric energy and on the basis of such allegation and consequent written report, the present Chakulia P.S. Case No. 66 of 2010 has been instituted. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that this is the second journey of the petitioners; as the petitioners earlier filed Cr.M.P. No. 1542 of 2010 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.11.2020, with liberty as provided in the said order. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Jamshedpur has wrongly, mechanically and without due application of judicial mind took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be made vicariously liable for the offence alleged to have been committed by the company and in the absence of specific allegation to show as to (2025:JHHC:34405) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 how the petitioners were involved in the affairs of the company which led to the alleged act of commission of offence, the opposite party no.2 has acted illegally and failed to act in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that for maintaining the prosecution case against the petitioners, arraigning of the company in which they are the directors as an accused is imperative. 7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Poddar vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 1620 wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court this Court considering the facts of that case, in the case relating to cheating and forgery for the purpose of cheating, reiterated the settled principle of law that only because a person is a CMD of a company, in the absence of any allegation against him of doing any particular act for commission of the alleged offence, such person cannot be arrayed as an accused and it is submitted that the petitioners of this case have been arrayed as accused only because they are the directors of the company. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Tapas Pattanaik @ Tapash Patnayak & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2024:JHHC:32114 in which case involving the offence inter alia of cheating and criminal breach of trust, this Court relied upon the (2025:JHHC:34405) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sushil Sethi & Anr. vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 240 wherein in paragraph no. 8.2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that as the main allegation can be said to be against the company, the penal code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the company; when the accused is a company. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ruchika Kakar through her Power of Attorney holder Devadatta Parshuram Dalvi vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1769 and submits that in that case involving the offence punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that for an individual to be made an accused on the allegation that he has perpetrated the commission of any offence on behalf of the company, there has to be sufficient evidence for his active role coupled with the criminal intent and the second situation in which he can be impleaded in those cases where statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability by specifically incorporating such a provision. (2025:JHHC:34405) 6 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.D. Diwan & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar 2692 wherein, in the facts of that case involving certain contravention of the Rules were found against the petitioner before this Court and in which cognizance for the offence under Section 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was taken against the petitioner, the coordinate Bench of this Court considering the facts of the case, held that the prosecution of the offence in that case was illegal. 9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S.K. Goel & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 750 of 2021 wherein, the coordinate Bench of this Court in the facts of that case involving the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code and by relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane reported in (2015) 12 SCC 781 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in such type of cases when the company has not been made a party and there was no specific allegation against the managing director, the coordinate Bench quashed the FIR of that case. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that in this case also (2025:JHHC:34405) 7 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 as company has not been arrayed as an accused hence, the entire criminal proceeding be quashed. 10. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for JUVNL on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that unlike the facts of the cases, the judgments of which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this is not a case of cheating or criminal breach of trust nor this is a case for non- compliance of the orders or direction the penalty of which has been provided in Section 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003; whereas, this is out and out a case of theft of electricity and interference of meter supplied and installed by JUVNL. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for JUVNL that the company does not have hands and legs so certainly, a company cannot commit theft without the involvement of someone else. It is further submitted by learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for JUVNL that here it is a case where theft was committed by the petitioners along with co-accused persons and here the company has not committed any offence rather the petitioners in their individual capacity have committed the offences of theft of electricity by interfering with the meter hence, there is no rhyme or reason why the company is to be arrayed as an accused more so, when the involvement of the petitioners both in committing theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.3,93,00,000/- and interfering with the meter was found to be true during the course of investigation and after investigation only, the police has (2025:JHHC:34405) 8 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the said offences. Hence, it is submitted that the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for JUVNL that the contention of the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners are false or that they have not committed any offence which was not possible to have been committed within the factory premises is at the most a defence of the petitioners, which the petitioners are free to take during the trial of the case at appropriate stage but in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot give a finding of fact upon the defence of the petitioners when the evidence of the prosecution is yet to begin. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.3,93,00,000/- and also of interfering with the meter. The allegations against the petitioners were found to be true upon investigation of the case by the police and on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police, learned Special Judge (Electricity), Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences. (2025:JHHC:34405) 9 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 12. It is pertinent to mention here as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 that veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court. 13. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing the theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.3,93,00,000/- and for tampering the meter. The contention of the petitioners that the allegations against them are false are at best a defence of the (2025:JHHC:34405) 10 Cr.M.P. No.2833 of 2020 petitioners which they can put forth at appropriate time during the trial of the case but certainly, the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition to accede to the prayer of the petitioners in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 17. The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 09.02.2021 is vacated. 18. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th November, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 24/11/2025