Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76619 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15372 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- The State Of Up Through Principal Secretary (Home) And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhannajai Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Dhannajai Pratap, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Dileep Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for Electricity Department/opposite party nos.2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing charge- sheet dated 29.05.2024 along with cognizance order dated 04.01.2025 and the entire proceedings of Session Case No.15 of 2025 (State vs. Sunil) arising out of Case Crime No.606 of 2021, under section 135 of Electricity Act, P.S. Anti Power Theft Chitrakoot, District- Anti Power Theft (Chitrakoot), pending before learned court of Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (Electricity Act), Chitrakoot. 3. It is the case of applicant that initially F.I.R. has been lodged on dated 17.07.2021 in pursuance to section 135 of Electricity Act alleging the applicant for theft of electricity and the implication continued to investigation carried out by concerned Investigating Officer, who preferred charge-sheet on dated 29.05.2024 and thereafter cognizance of offence has been taken up on dated 04.01.2025 by learned court concerned. 4. Learned counsel for applicant while challenging the entire proceedings along with order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned court concerned through which cognizance of offence has been taken up in pursuance to charge-sheet preferred on dated 29.05.2024 specifically under section 135 Electricity Act precisely on the basis of section 514 of BNSS, wherein there is a specific bar of taking cognizance by concerned court after prescribed limitation; under section 514 BNSS, wherein section 514(2)(c) crystal clearly defines that the period of limitation shall be three years, if the offence is punishable imprisonment for the term of one year, but not exceeding three years; section 135 Electricity Act wherein the offence and penalties has been defined in which the maximum so as to abstract or use of electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, provided that in case whether the load abstract, consumed or used or attempted abstraction or admitted consumption or admitted use does not exceed 10 kilo watt. 5. 5. In the instant matter, the allegation which has been put forward against the applicant wherein he has already been implicated with regard to extraction of two kilo watt, which is maximum punishment of three years and the same is covered in pursuance to section 514(2)(c) of BNSS. For substantiating arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant, he relied upon judgement dated 27.01.2025, which has been passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the similar set of facts, wherein after considering the arguments raised in pursuance to section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., which is similar of section 514(2)(c) of BNSS, the cognizance order passed after prescribed limitation of three years has been quashed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.27174 of 2024. 6. Precise query has been made before learned counsel for applicant that what would be the fate of allegation which has been found true as per the prosecution mentioned in the charge-sheet preferred before learned court concerned for taking cognizance, but the prescribed limitation has already been expired, in case if this Court may quash the order passed by concerned court through which cognizance of offence has been taken up in pursuance to section 210 of BNSS what would be the fate of charge-sheet and the case of prosecution? 7. Learned counsel for applicant assisted the Court in shape of reply that it is the prosecution who will at liberty to frame their case for seeking condonation of delay before learned court concerned by way of explaining the ground for delay in culminating into passing order dated 04.01.2025 after prescribed limitation of three years, but at the same time after going through the particular facts of the matter, it is crystal clear that there is hardly any delay occurred on the part of prosecution, it is the concerned Investigating Officer who completed the investigation after a long period of time, i.e., after institution of F.I.R. dated 17.07.2021, the charge-sheet has been submitted by 29.05.2024, but a very short time has been left for learned court concerned for taking cognizance and the same was taken up after expiry of near about seven months, i.e., on dated 04.01.2025 and as such burden lies on the learned court concerned for looking into the matter with strict compliance of provisions, specifically in the instant matter, which attracts section 514 BNSS. Although quashing of cognizance of offence order dated 04.01.2025 is not sustainable in the eye of law, but at the same time the case framed out by the prosecution wherein the applicant has been implicated in respect of electricity theft, this aspect has to be considered by learned court concerned for establishing the case against the applicant for deciding the same on the basis of strict proof of evidence as well as upon the verified statements of prosecution and defence. 8. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and in the light of observation as made above, order dated 04.01.2025 is hereby set-aside. However, Electricity Department being the opposite party nos.2 and 3 will be at liberty to prefer their cause of action for redressal of their grievances before the appropriate forum of law. 9. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad